Commercial Viability of Space, Restored - Semi-reconstructured thread

Gennaro · 2004-02-04 14:18:39

The following was originally a thread initiated by me in the middle of December or something. It crashed yet thanks to BGD, Rxke and others, I managed to copy the messages before it went unredeemingly bananas and thus salvage the discussion. However, the dates when individual messages were written have been lost and the authorship is due to some research of mine, so there could be a few errors. If anyone isn't credited or does not recognize a post they supposedly have written, do send a private message or something.
Thanks,
G

The thread started off like this:
---

I'll try to initiate a discussion on this topic. Any aspect of space economics is considered relevant. From the thread "Reasons Against Mars Direct":

GCNRevenger:

Precious metals aren't precious if you flood the market with them. (...)
There is no profit in space industry.

RobertDyck:

As I said before, when gold mines were opened in the Yukon or California it did not make precious metals cheap. Any new mine will not make precious metals cheap, space is no different.
---
Now can we talk about a mined commodity that actually has a chance of commercial viability; like rocket fuel, industrial metals to construct space stations, or precious metals?

I believe we can. I?ll keep this post mostly about PGM?s. In order to clarify just how much is much in terms of flooding the market, this is the yearly consumption of platinum group metals worldwide, given in tonnes (metric tons) or otherwise noted:

Platinum:
1998: 167.0 t
1999: 173.8 t
2000: 174.2 t

Palladium:
1998: 264.7 t
1999: 291.4 t
2000: 276.8 t

Rodium:
1998: 15.8 t
1999: 16.4 t
2000: 25.1 t

Rutenium:
1999: 12 780 kg
2000: 13 650 kg

Iridium:
1999: 3 050 kg
2000: 3 950 kg

[http://www.sgu.se/kartpubl/sgupubl/perp … l_2-01.pdf]http://www.sgu.se/kartpub....-01.pdf

Since the source is in Swedish it makes no sense for most around here trying to read it through :;): (it's an official report from The Swedish Geological Survey), but the numbers are there in the section entitled "Efterfr?gan" (="demand").
Now, anyone can begin to make themselves a rough picture on what quantities would be required to destabilize the market (i.e avoiding doing so), versus what is reasonable to transport to Earth from a payload perspective. As can readily be seen, current demand for rutenium and iridium is too small to justify any serious consideration and osmium which is really fringe has been omitted alltogether. Platinum and palladium on the other hand goes in the hundreds of tonnes range yearly and since these metals are generally found together, rodium can concievably be brought along for the ride.
I'll try to get a more detailed overview of prices, but my current understanding is that we are reasonably dealing with a $10,000-25,000/kg range or more (1 tonne = 1,000 kg). Can this volume justify space enterprise? I?m not absolutely sure one way or the other, but we could at least discuss the issue.

I would like to point out a few things.
When these metals were individually identified from platinum in the 19th century they had practically no industrial application, but that has changed since. Apart from pollution cathalyzation in the autocar industry (a relative stop-gap sector reliant on fossil fuels) they find steady-state use as cathalysts in the fertilizer, explosive, nitrite and petrochemical industries. High-tech applications of various kinds is a growing sector, so if we view it historically, I think we can safely assume that demand will only increase overtime.

Terran resources are highly concentrated. The Bushveldt complex in South Africa stands for 75% of currently known deposits. Remaining notable deposits include the Norilsk/Talnakh area in Siberia, Sudbury in Canada, Stillwater in the United States and the Great Dyke in Zimbabwe. Prospecting in Canada has nevertheless lead to significant finds, primarily in Muskox, that are only rivalled by the Bushveldt complex. This is a difference from the so called "rare earth metals" group, that are not really rare at all.

PGM ores are primarily a feature of mafic/ultra-mafic complexes which means that the richest deposits are a result of magma eruption and differentiation, not geohydrology. This is interesting because magmatic processes can be expected to be found throughout the solar system, while hydrological ore differentiation (at least within practical reach) is basically limited to Earth and Mars. As for magmatic processes, just think of the Tharsis region! In terms of meaningful magma differentiation, at least from my point of view of limited understanding, I wouldn't even rule out the Moon, as can be seen here:
[http://www.psrd.hawaii.edu/Aug00/newMoon.html]http://www.psrd.hawaii.edu/Aug00/newMoon.html

A cut-through view of a terran mafic/ultra-mafic complex:
[http://geology.csupomona.edu/drjessey/c … ayered.htm]http://geology.csupomona.edu/drjessey/c … ayered.htm

Readily available on Mars apart from precious metals is of course deuterium that can be had fairly easily from H2 processing. Deuterium is about six times as plentiful on Mars as on Earth, where (in the latter case) it is harvested as 1/7000 normal hydrogen atoms from sea water.
So why ship deuterium from Mars to Earth? I want to emphasize something which I believe is a mistake when thinking about space resource feasibility. No matter the scary distances or maybe the potentially daunting difficulties involved, deuterium (as do PGM?s) currently has a specific market value. For deuterium this is about $10,000/kg and that?s even before fusion reactors have become a reality. The truth of the matter is that so long as you can ship any commodity for a net profit while selling for a given market price, it doesn?t matter if your net profit is less than that of the competion. Sounds absurd? It?s only absurd if you plan to create a privately funded mega corporation (taking loans at international interest rates), aiming to compete by wholesale space enterprise. Then, even if you could bring up the investment, of course you?ll be buried in no time. If nothing else, your shares will plummit as investors abandon your project for cheaper terran counterparts and more promising returns.
On the other hand, if you create a tax funded and state operated space company, in analogy to the great East India companies of old, there is nothing to worry about except maintaining a positive net return, no matter how small. For example, a Martian settlement plan could include a commercial department, concievably on a rather modest platform, by sending a small workforce and robotic equipment to Mars as well as maintaining responsibilty for the transportation. Return shipments would be loaded with a mixed cargo of deuterium, PGM?s or whatever and the net result could be promptly injected into the settlement program, eventually making it financially self-sustainable.
So when discussing space industry, I find it?s enormously important to keep in mind what kind of space industry we are talking about. Forget all about free-market capitalism, which only serves to keep us in LEO in a permanent socio-cultural retro orbit. In relation to space, it?s an outdated mode of production.

Having said thus, it really only boils down to launch costs and transportation systems (don?t it always?). I?m not going to present my own (and probably flawed) ideas just yet, however. Suffice to say that today?s launch prices are indefensible. Not solely because of space manufacture overhead and technological standstill - there is simply no reason to throw away an entire merchantman each time it takes to the sea only because the space agencies and contractors haven?t yet grasped how to put out reusable launch vehicles with comparative economics of scale.

Finally, there?s the subject of flooded markets and dwindling prices. Maybe in contradiction to RobertDyck above, I have to admit that this effect is very real of course. As the Spanish shipped back all that gold and silver from the Americas in the 16th and 17th centuries, the price of bullion and thus the price of money dropped, resulting in an extended inflation in the European economy (as the prices of everything in relation to gold and silver rose). Same thing happened, although to a much smaller extent, when gold was found in Alaska and South Africa at the end of the 19th century.
On the other hand, the increased circulation and the expanded capital base of the European economy resulting from South American buillion imports, provided one of the fundamental conditions for the extraordinary growth of European and Atlantic economies during the last five centuries.
Similarly, decreasing commodity prices means decreasing production costs, which taken as a whole drives economical progress. The thing is of course not to destroy the market by, in this case, flooding it with PGM?s, but maintaining a dynamic balance of supply and demand.
Again, the decisive point is cheap transportation. Maybe not so much in regard to transit volumes, but to flexibility and cheap turn arounds of the transit operation itself.

Gennaro · 2004-02-04 14:20:26

- Bill White:

The truth of the matter is that so long as you can ship any commodity for a net profit while selling for a given market price, it doesn?t matter if your net profit is less than that of the competion.

Genuis!

The export of Marsian material need not be the sole funding source of a Marsian settlement, it merely needs to offset part of the settlement costs. Don't settle Mars in search of profit. Use commercial profit to help subsidize your settlement.

Do I grasp your point?

If a Mars settlement made its own rocket fuel from Marsian raw materials then we can disregard the cost of shipping deuterium to Earth and simply cash the $10,000 per kg checks to defray investment costs.

Add this revenue to marketing revenue (for example) and maybe we can raise enough money to fund a settlement.

= = =

Yet this only works if profit is not your exclusive reason for going to Mars, right?

Gennaro · 2004-02-04 14:21:53

- Gennaro:

The export of Marsian material need not be the sole funding source of a Marsian settlement, it merely needs to offset part of the settlement costs. Don't settle Mars in search of profit. Use commercial profit to help subsidize your settlement.
Do I grasp your point?

- To the point! That?s about it, summed up in three sentences.

Yet this only works if profit is not your exclusive reason for going to Mars, right?

- Exactly. And why should it be? The future of western civilization, progress and humanity is a lot more important than some lousy profit venture. Money is a means, it's not an end.

Gennaro · 2004-02-04 14:23:23

- Rxke:

Gennaro, that great thinking you did. Sometimes things are so obvious once they're clearly laid out for everybody to see, but you have to discover 'the fact' of course.

Now... Would it be profitable? It could change a lot of things, anything even marginally profitable could make reusable return vehicules a lot more interesting. Now the only thing left needed is a cheap way to bring it down from Earth orbit.

Maybe cheap, mass-produced (on Mars) inflatable 'dump-boxes' like that German company is developing...
[http://www.2r2s.de/]RRSS (Java/stylesheets stuff....)

BTW... Today my professor brought some stuff to the lab, i was sorting the various bits and pieces, stowing them away in their respective cabinets... There were two 'nosedropper-bottles' (you know, the ones with a pipet in the screw-top...) with liquids in them: Palladium and platinium solutions (for certain photographic procedes)
Out of curiosity i checked on his website how much these tiny bottles were worth... Boy... It *is* really expensive stuff...

Gennaro · 2004-02-04 14:25:22

- jadeheart:

The profit-aided exploration idea sounds good to me too, but right now I can't think of a single thing the government does that generates above-board profit for itself, other than taxation. (No need to get into Iran-Contra etc. here.) There must be a reason for this.

One current area that comes to mind which seems to take the wind out of Gennaro's idea is pharmaceuticals. As you probably know, government research leads to a lot of new drugs; but the government never makes a profit from this-- the results & formulae are given to industry to put into production and no money changes hands as far as I know.

A brief spin thru google indicates that the government does own some patents but seems to license them freely to industry. I have a feeling there is some legality involved here, something prohibiting the government from getting involved in marketing commodities. At the very least it must be some kind of ideology concerning government promoting private industry? I don't know for sure, but maybe somebody else here does. Anyway, I think some changes in the way our government operates would be needed for the Martian-profit idea to happen. Historically our government has led the way in taking risks opening up new markets & opportunities for the economy, but doesn't itself directly profit. I've also heard about mining rights in the American West being given to mining companies (even non-US ones) at no cost. Again, there seems to be some kind of legal precedent involved here, maybe having something to do with the gov't interfering w/ commerce by competing with it.

So it seems like there could be a real rat's nest of legal/political implications involved in something like this, at least for the United States gov't. Maybe another nation would be less inhibited in this regard? I'm pretty ignorant when it comes to constitutional law.

But, the case could be made that since these activities were happening on Mars they would be outside of the purview of the normally applicable precedents. This seems kind of flimsy to me though, as anything brought to market would be sold & profited from on Earth.

Gennaro · 2004-02-04 14:26:34

- clark:

Debeers would be proud.

anything you ship from Mars, such as these metals, has an inherent value. If you're going with this idea, why not go a step further and create something of a "holding" company on the receiving end of the transport.

What?

Think of it like this: You have miners and mines on any spot in the universe. They mine and ship their product, whatever that might be, to the Martian Metals Merchant (MMM). MMM pays a set price per ton of material. In fact, they tell anyone who wants to make a go of space that they will pay them this set amount. Based on this, would be space miners/settlers can build a business case to get extra funding by pointing to the MMM company as a source of future revenue.

What ids MMM doing though to make this work?

They sit on the contract 'futures' of the shipped metals. MMM owns them. It sells on the open market these futures, when, and how much, they feel is appropriate at the time.

This is basically what's done with the diamonds, now.

MMM opens a R&D unit, in partnership with various government and non-government agencies to develop more effecient mining and transportation methods (this has the effect of increasing production, and profit margins by reducing overhead related to the two major business costs, production and transportation).

Just a thought...

Gennaro · 2004-02-04 14:28:16

- RobS:

Right now the United States government has some sort of law that says research from government grants--such as biological research at a university--does not belong to the government, and thus can be used by private industry. The law was passed when it was noticed that government red tape was holding up lots of new discoveries from becoming practical products and services.

But there are other models to consider, such as publicly own corporations (the U.S. postal service, PBS) which provide a public service, charge fees, and can make a profit on some of their operations to cover costs in others. I don't know the details, but they seem like models to consider.

- RobS

Gennaro · 2004-02-04 14:30:57

- Bill White:

MMM? Actually, that is exactly what would happen.

Analysts on Earth will track commodity markets and advise whether to ship dueterium, or platinum, or iridium or whatever. In fact, the Mars settlers might be well advised to stockpile various commodities and then ship whatever will command the highest price. Marsian settlers tracking the Chicago Board of Options commodities index? Yeah team!

The biggest technical challenge may be building rocket motors and fairings on Mars, with Marsian materials. Fuel? Zubrin solved that problem already, but rocket motors and fairings, how do we build those on Mars? The Mars surface to Mars orbit leg needs to be accomplished without the need to send transport from Earth for Gennaro's idea to have maximum effect.

To rely on a re-useable Marsian shuttle built on Earth creates a bottleneck that eats into Marsian profit. That may be necessary at first yet for the Marsian exporters to really get going, they will need the ability to fabricate rocket motors to launch cargo.

= = =

Yet, clark, I sense a "money is dirty" aspect to your comment, as if doing Mars would be somehow more "pure" if all funding (necessarily siphoned from humanity's global economy) were washed through the federal government first. And that profit is inherently evil. (EDIT: Well, maybe not you so much but those folks do exist. . .)

But don't worry about DeBeers - - those guys will soon be toast now that artificial diamonds have arrived. And this campaign for "natural" diamonds? It will flop IMHO. What bride will want a "used" diamond when a new one is available.

(EDIT: An insensitive anti-DeBeers meme was deleted)

Gennaro · 2004-02-04 14:32:17

- clark:

Must i solve all your problems?

Zubrin solved that problem already, but rocket motors and fairings, how do we build those on Mars?

We have fuel, right? And we have basic metals from mining Mars right? So we in essence have basic commodities to trade for more advanced parts- such as rocket fairings. But, that costs a whole hell of a lot becuase we have to ship them from Earth to Mars.

So, we build a factory to build the rockets, which is owned by MMM, on mars. Settelers worry about mining the stuff- MMM worries about getting it to market. MMM could very well set up a trade route with one of those constant-shuttle-between-Earth-Mars things that use gravity slingshots (ore dosen't need to move very quickly). So they fill up the outbound (from Earth) with advanced electronics and other sundries for Mars, and Mars fills up those containers with basic ore and what-not (now you have people taking the cheaper, but longer transit, frieght train between Mars-Earth... sorry, side thought)

The Mars surface to Mars orbit leg needs to be accomplished without the need to send transport from Earth for Gennaro's idea to have maximum effect.

Would the tether idea work in Mars? I think by the time we are considering settelment of space, cost of launch for Earth will be reduced- which is a function of technology, right? Wouldn't whatever we discovered for Earth be applicable on Mars, more or less? I don't think this will be a problem at the point where we are considering what our problems are.

Yet, clark, I sense a "money is dirty" aspect to your comment, as if doing Mars would be somehow more "pure" if all funding (necessarily siphoned from humanity's global economy) were washed through the federal government first. And that profit is inherently evil.

No, not really. Profit though has the problem of becoming an end unto itself. It's not about what you are or are not doing, but ho0w much money you can make. It dosen't have to be washed through the federal government, but I don't neccessarily buy into the premise that a single individual or small group is somehow more enlightened and noble than the 'federal government'.

I would prefer a 'synergy' if it's all the same to you.

But don't worry about DeBeers - - those guys will soon be toast now that artificial diamonds have arrived. And this campaign for "natural" diamonds? It will flop IMHO. What bride will want a "used" diamond when a new one is available.

Women are strange creatures. If nothing else, they will always surprise you... at least the good ones.

Now, where did I put my 2 months pay... :laugh:

Gennaro · 2004-02-04 14:35:09

- Bill White:

Dang! - its less fun when we agree.

Marsian fabricated rocket motors and payload fairings will of course be feasible. Just a trifle more difficult than making methane or another form of rocket fuel. A tether system in low Mars orbit can toss payloads to Earth easily enough yet surface to LMO remains a hurdle to cross.

And (IMHO) elevators will prove a bottleneck, lacking the through-put capacity to offset the capital cost for construction, but that is merely an opinion for another thread.

The essential point?

Mars will be integrated into the inter-globalized human economy with Marsian raw material futures bought and sold by folks with physics undergrad degrees and advanced degrees in financial analysis.

Sorry, you libertarian types, but buy your rockets now and head for the Kuiper Belt. It will take a 1000 years for the rest of us to "globalize' there.

Gennaro · 2004-02-04 14:37:55

- clark:

Okay, you're wrong.

A tether system in low Mars orbit can toss payloads to Earth easily enough yet surface to LMO remains a hurdle to cross.

And here you go forgeting all about your basic Martian geography. What are they teaching you kids in school these days?! I mean, I would expect this from some Terran brat, after all, they can't even name the major geological features of ANY planet, let alone Mars. Geessh, just another sign of our declining times and standards.

So, to remind you of the lessons you should have learned, you will of course remember a certain Martian geological feature- a most prominent one on Mars. In fact, you may even say it is one of the most defining characterisitcs of Mars.

Now what am i talking about?

If you say, Olympus Mons, you get a cookie!

Rail gun + Olympus Mons = LMO. Come on Bill, you know this one. I know you know this one. Go look at South America, and tell me what you see.

Sorry, you libertarian types, but buy your rockets now and head for the Kuiper Belt. It will take a 1000 years for the rest of us to "globalize' there.

They could go to Neptune. Nobody wants Neptune. Poor, poor, Neptune. :laugh:

Gennaro · 2004-02-04 14:39:00

- Bill White:

If you say, Olympus Mons, you get a cookie!

That will be in the 3rd sequel, AFTER we have plenty of chickens and eggs on hand. Otherwise exactly right.

Gennaro · 2004-02-04 14:41:38

- clark:

That will be in the 3rd sequel, AFTER we have plenty of chickens and eggs on hand. Otherwise exactly right.

Of course. The cow jumped over the moon, and then the chicken and egg were launched into LMO. I see it all so perfectly now.

Now we just need to work in a custard pie and a monkey. :laugh:

Gennaro · 2004-02-04 14:42:43

- Bill White:

That will be in the 3rd sequel, AFTER we have plenty of chickens and eggs on hand. Otherwise exactly right.
Of course. The cow jumped over the moon, and then the chicken and egg were launched into LMO. I see it all so perfectly now.
Now we just need to work in a custard pie and a monkey. :laugh:

I wonder if anyone else has a clue what we are talking about?

Dude, that Olympus Mons facility will need about a mile of high spec industrial grade pipe, plus a huge chemical processing plant.

Hand fabrication of rocket motors will allow limited exports to allow the purchase of a few chickens. Sell the eggs and buy a few more chickens. Sell those eggs and buy even more chickens and so on. . .

Once you have a mile's worth of high grade pipe, start buying chickens by the thousands.

Gennaro · 2004-02-04 14:44:15

- clark:

I'm not certain if *I* know what we are talking about anymore. :laugh:

Dude, that Olympus Mons facility will need about a mile of high spec industrial grade pipe, plus a huge chemical processing plant.

But just think what it will do for the local economy!

Hand fabrication of rocket motors will allow limited exports to allow the purchase of a few chickens. Sell the eggs and buy a few more chickens. Sell those eggs and buy even more chickens and so on. . .
Once you have a mile's worth of high grade pipe, start buying chickens by the thousands.

What is this, some third world co-op? Wait, I guess it might as well be a 'second'-world co-op. Get it, second world? You see, because ti would be the second world we were on. Get it? Ah, I do love to pun. :laugh:

I guess I'll just listen to the crickets chirp for now. [sigh]

Gennaro · 2004-02-04 14:53:18

The following messages are new. As can be seen this first one is by me, Gennaro:

- :laugh:

Here is what I think.

To begin with, I might be pre-judgemental but I?m having a hard time seeing serious rocket maintenace, not to mention rocket engine industry and faring manufacture happening on Mars for a considerable amount of time. Hangars and construction yards are the things that belong in the THIRD SEQUEL or later, never mind Olympus Mons launching pads! Simultaneously, the reason we need interplanetary commerce in the first place is to convince the archontian powers of this world that Mars colonization will at least not constitute just a dead rock money hole. Consequently, since I?d like to think about what?s happening in parts I and II, when there aren?t yet as many eggs and chicken, I presume that all transportation hardware must originate Earthside. For the sake of argument I will in fact pre-suppose (oh, brave me!) that Mars is incapable of manufacturing anything whatsoever (i.e apart from ISPP and basic settlement needs etc).
Secondly, as much as I like SSTO and VTOVL-type spaceships and similar, reusable rockets are probably not practical for Terra-Mars transfers (unlike, I would suggest, if there were similar resources waiting for us on the Moon). If nothing else, the severly restricted launch windows inhibit the benefits of fast turn arounds and you?ll end up with a shuttle situation where comparatively low lifting capacity spacecraft cost a fortune just standing idly by, years at a time. So, to make commercial use of an early Mars colony, I suppose we need a sort of cheapest possible expendable booster as a cargo hauler.
The Apollo program Saturn V used to cost 97.44 million to launch in 1985 dollars, a Titan IV launch costs 300 million dollars today. With all the overhead stripped from such a vehicle you could probably get away with a tenth of the cost, or about $30 million. (Operating under current policies, there will be zero reason for MMM to invite the aero-space giants of today to design its rocket fleet!)
If we use the present market price for deuterium as a baseline, and we imagine an Earth bound cargo capacity equalling a Mars Direct ERV (11.5 tonnes, quite low), one roundtrip should make something like 115 million dollars of gross profit. For being conservative that?s a four time return on the hardware investment, which is probably feasible.
I?m not implying any exactitude of course. It?s just an attempt to establish what magnitudes might be dealt with.

So what?s your opinion on something like the following? An unmanned chemical rocket carrying an Earth Return Vehicle (or rather ?Cargo Return Vehicle?) blasts off from Terra on a long duration low propellant expenditure Hohmann trajectory (258 days). The return vehicle makes a ?manned? landing by way of remote from the Martian surface. Main cargo to Mars except the ERV is a set of inflatable dump boxes as described by the link provided by Rxke. I must say, those cargo dumpers are a wonderful idea!
The Cargo Return Vehicle is fuelled and loaded to capacity. It blasts off from the comparatively low delta V Martian environment and uses a similar 258-day trajectory for the Earth bound trip. As it goes into orbit, it releases the dump boxes and since there won?t be a certain mass restriction imposed on the return vehicle design in order to land it by aero-breaking, it should be possible to assign it a bigger payload. Of course you could still design it as an areo-breakage descender if you want a re-usable, since when empty it will be comparatively light.

You then cash in and order another rocket which perhaps could carry import goods back to Mars as well as new dumpers. This is optional however, since there may be reasons to maximise cost efficiency versus delta V requirements in every element of the transport system.
Not very spectacular as rocketships go, but the aim should be cost efficiency and hopefully being practical.

Oh, by the way. In regard to the MMM concept (as the name now goes) of state controlled Martian commercialization in order to partly pay for the space program, I?ve discovered that Zubrin suggests practically the same thing in Entering Space pp. 107-108. I didn?t steal his the idea though, which is nice since having the good doctor on the side feels like it pretty much enforces the case.

Launch cost of a three-stage Saturn V ELV:
[http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/satnvelv.htm]http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/satnvelv.htm

Launch cost of a Titan IV-Centaur: Zubrin, Entering Space p. 27

Rxke?s dump boxes (well, somewhat. Couldn?t relocate the original page:
[http://www.skyrocket.de/space/index_fra … irdt-1.htm]http://www.skyrocket.de/space....tm?http

clark · 2004-02-04 15:37:47

In the interest of accuracy, those two "someone" posts were written by Bill.

To begin with, I might be pre-judgemental but I?m having a hard time seeing serious rocket maintenace, not to mention rocket engine industry and faring manufacture happening on Mars for a considerable amount of time.

I understand your reservations, but won't they need these skills and abilities on Mars? The driving force behind it all is the fact that you simply can't make a go of Mars or space, without the technological capabilites of space travel. That means you need to have the capability to build and repair engines a million miles from the nearest friendly port.

Take a look at the Dutch to get an idea- their dominance and strength came from the Merchant fleet. With their ability to build and repair their ships. Mars will be similar in such respects.

For the sake of argument I will in fact pre-suppose (oh, brave me!) that Mars is incapable of manufacturing anything whatsoever (i.e apart from ISPP and basic settlement needs etc).

Ah-hah! But this is where current events will show you wrong. Imagine a Moon-base-colony-depot-whatever, that exsists for ten years prior to the exploration of Mars. Imagine that moon infrastructure grows during the exploration phase of Mars. By the time of settlement, the hard part is over- the Moon has taught us, and trained the people to manufacture in space.

And as everyone here is so quick to point out, Mars is a veritable paradise compared to the Moon. Where might some of that manufacturing base be relocated to? Hmmmm. :laugh:

So what?s your opinion on something like the following? An unmanned chemical rocket carrying an Earth Return Vehicle (or rather ?Cargo Return Vehicle?) blasts off from Terra on a long duration low propellant expenditure Hohmann trajectory (258 days). The return vehicle makes a ?manned? landing by way of remote from the Martian surface. Main cargo to Mars except the ERV is a set of inflatable dump boxes as described by the link provided by Rxke. I must say, those cargo dumpers are a wonderful idea!

Any plan is fine as long as it presupposes ion propulsion, or nuclear propulsion/power generation. Chemicals are for cheap access to LEO, or LMO.

Think of it like this: Getting into space requires a rowboat, i.e. chemical propulsion. Getting to another planet requires an actual sail boat, i.e. more effecient forms of propulsion. Sure, we could row our way across the ocean to Europe or America (which ever way you are facing), but it would be more economical, in many ways, to go with the sail boat.

Bill White · 2004-02-04 16:18:05

Shipping materials from Mars to Earth (bulk goods only - no precious fossils) could be done with "made on Mars" magnesium based solid fuel rockets.

Supercritical CO2 "mines" magnesium quite easily and if rocket casings were fabricated from aluminium or other scraps that would otherwise sit idle in a trash heap, then virtually all of the proceeds from selling whatever is shipped back could be used to offset the costs of settlement.

Since polyethylene appears to be the material of choice for radiation shielding, and since it can be made easily on Mars as a spin off of the Sabatier process, polyethlene can be sold to Luna for at least the cost of shipping from Earth to Luna.

Gennaro · 2004-02-04 17:56:41

In the interest of accuracy, those two "someone" posts were written by Bill.

- Fixed. Actually guessed as much but needed absolute proof. Thanks.

I like a lot of the input from the two last posts. If, or rather when transport hardware can be constructed on Mars the commercial sector will really take off. Judging from the commentary this might happen sooner rather than later.

But I will still play the caveat advocate. Mars is worse than building a rocket factory on Greenland (well, without the ice sheet), only there is no pressure. Rusty dust getting into high tech gear and who do you call when you run out of spare parts? Think about it. I'm pretty clueless of what goes into a rocket ship, but I can well imagine there are a lot of components that will have to be shipped from Earth any way you do it. Can I say turbopumps?
And then there are the engineers, the workers in the plant, their material needs, tools and coffee cups. A lot of people needing other people to sustain them. Machinery to build machinery, pressurized hangars... I probably could go on, but to the point: all of which translates into significant amounts of investment. Before we buy more chickens we need some eggs...
On the other hand, an airliner is said to be more complicated than a rocket and as Bill White mentioned the option of solid magnesium rockets... well, I start to think maybe it's me overcomplicating things. A solid rocket, what's that? Basically a big piece of chinese fireworks, right...?

Think of it like this: Getting into space requires a rowboat, i.e. chemical propulsion. Getting to another planet requires an actual sail boat, i.e. more effecient forms of propulsion. Sure, we could row our way across the ocean to Europe or America (which ever way you are facing), but it would be more economical, in many ways, to go with the sail boat.

Well, I haven't forgotten about it. It's just that in the scenario of launching expendable hardware from Earth, a nuclear or ion upper stage seems like an awful waste to throw away. Chemical rocketry is mostly the price of fuel and that ought to be dirt cheap. Who cares if it takes a little longer when nobody's onboard doing the rowing? That's why I suggested a strict Hohmann trajectory, it takes longer, but saves on fuel and thus entails a better mass fraction, making the entire design even cheaper.
It's true what you say about Dutch merchants by the way. The cargo fluyt was highly competitive because it was so small and simple compared to a Spanish galleon, to maintain not least.
Yes, we need to develop ways of servicing and eventually constructing things off planet Earth. We can't have ion cyclers before we have ways of reaching them locally from Mars for example. But before we get to that point...
In fact, as I wrote I was thinking about longships. Longships both have oars and sails. They don't need harbors or anything. Maybe we're in the age of longships? Expendable Viking vessels. Hrmm...

Since polyethylene appears to be the material of choice for radiation shielding, and since it can be made easily on Mars as a spin off of the Sabatier process, polyethlene can be sold to Luna for at least the cost of shipping from Earth to Luna.

Yes, I love these simple things that the Lunarians can't do without.

By the way, isn't it even cheaper shipping things from Mars to Luna, at least delta V-wise?

Bill White · 2004-02-04 18:15:57

I'm pretty clueless of what goes into a rocket ship, but I can well imagine there are a lot of components that will have to be shipped from Earth any way you do it. Can I say turbopumps?

If you need to ship significant parts from Earth, it will never be economical. The cost to ship turbopumps to Mars will come close to the cost of shipping goods from Mars to LEO/Luna.

That is why I said solid fuel magnesium rockets - - probably with a fairly high failure rate. The magnesium is mined on Mars and the rocket casings are made from scavenged materials that have little other use. Plastic rocket tubes might be feasible as well.

Gennaro · 2004-02-06 03:16:37

If you need to ship significant parts from Earth, it will never be economical. The cost to ship turbopumps to Mars will come close to the cost of shipping goods from Mars to LEO/Luna.
That is why I said solid fuel magnesium rockets - - probably with a fairly high failure rate. The magnesium is mined on Mars and the rocket casings are made from scavenged materials that have little other use. Plastic rocket tubes might be feasible as well.

Now that I've slept on it I believe you have me convinced. Wonder why no one else have thought about this idea, excellent in its simplicity, to ship things from Mars to Earth?
I'm impressed!

I'll try and see what solid fuels provide the best performance and which of those can be had on Mars. You sure magnesium can provide enough thrust to power it off the red planet?

ronondexfan · 2012-09-08 19:54:30

FYI: If you're going to create Martian Metals Merchant, you'll need to change the abbreviation, or 3M is liable to sue...:P

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-02-04 14:18:39

Re: Commercial Viability of Space, Restored - Semi-reconstructured thread

#2 2004-02-04 14:20:26

Re: Commercial Viability of Space, Restored - Semi-reconstructured thread

#3 2004-02-04 14:21:53

Re: Commercial Viability of Space, Restored - Semi-reconstructured thread

#4 2004-02-04 14:23:23

Re: Commercial Viability of Space, Restored - Semi-reconstructured thread

#5 2004-02-04 14:25:22

Re: Commercial Viability of Space, Restored - Semi-reconstructured thread

#6 2004-02-04 14:26:34

Re: Commercial Viability of Space, Restored - Semi-reconstructured thread

#7 2004-02-04 14:28:16

Re: Commercial Viability of Space, Restored - Semi-reconstructured thread

#8 2004-02-04 14:30:57

Re: Commercial Viability of Space, Restored - Semi-reconstructured thread

#9 2004-02-04 14:32:17

Re: Commercial Viability of Space, Restored - Semi-reconstructured thread

#10 2004-02-04 14:35:09

Re: Commercial Viability of Space, Restored - Semi-reconstructured thread

#11 2004-02-04 14:37:55

Re: Commercial Viability of Space, Restored - Semi-reconstructured thread

#12 2004-02-04 14:39:00

Re: Commercial Viability of Space, Restored - Semi-reconstructured thread

#13 2004-02-04 14:41:38

Re: Commercial Viability of Space, Restored - Semi-reconstructured thread

#14 2004-02-04 14:42:43

Re: Commercial Viability of Space, Restored - Semi-reconstructured thread

#15 2004-02-04 14:44:15

Re: Commercial Viability of Space, Restored - Semi-reconstructured thread

#16 2004-02-04 14:53:18

Re: Commercial Viability of Space, Restored - Semi-reconstructured thread

#17 2004-02-04 15:37:47

Re: Commercial Viability of Space, Restored - Semi-reconstructured thread

#18 2004-02-04 16:18:05

Re: Commercial Viability of Space, Restored - Semi-reconstructured thread

#19 2004-02-04 17:56:41

Re: Commercial Viability of Space, Restored - Semi-reconstructured thread

#20 2004-02-04 18:15:57

Re: Commercial Viability of Space, Restored - Semi-reconstructured thread

#21 2004-02-06 03:16:37

Re: Commercial Viability of Space, Restored - Semi-reconstructured thread

#22 2012-09-08 19:54:30

Re: Commercial Viability of Space, Restored - Semi-reconstructured thread

Board footer