Ordinary people...?

Vajper · 2004-12-26 21:01:55

Hey.
I find this whole Mars exploration thing absolutely fascinating. The only problem is, I'm more of an activist, something is only exciting to me if I'm there
Like I go to an airshow and think "damn lucky bastad flying that plane", hehe.
Unfortunately, like pretty much everyone else on the planet, I'm more likely to live to 125 than I am to become an astronaut.
My question is: will ordinary people, or at least, people with an active interest in this, be able to go to mars within our lifetimes?
(For the record, I'm currently 19)

Forgive me if I sound naive or so.

GCNRevenger · 2004-12-26 21:37:00

For ordinary middle-class once-in-a-lifetime ticket trip to Mars... probobly not. To orbit is possible, to the Moon is a possibility, but Mars is a long way from being developed into a destination.

MarsDog · 2004-12-26 22:20:47

Technological advances are hard to predict beyond a decade or more.

The key question will be price.

Now, we are on the verge of nations being able to finance it.

My guess is 50 to 100 years before the very rich can decide to emigrate to a greenhouse, shopping mall, cave type complex.

RobertDyck · 2004-12-26 23:51:50

If we get our ass moving and don't sit around waiting for "someone" to do it for us, we can have trips to Mars by early 2027. That would make you 41 years old. It would cost a quarter billion in 2004 dollars, but it would be possible. That assumes a reusable ITV and reusable space taxi. A larger ship capable of carrying 100 passengers to Mars would cost substantially less, but it's too early to predict the price.

RobS · 2004-12-27 00:51:21

The other big problem with tourism to Mars will be the time commitment; probably 3 1/2 months minimum to get there, a month there, and 3 1/2 months to return to earth. It won't be quick. An even slower option would be 6 months to get there, a month there, and a year to return via Venus flyby.

-- RobS

SpaceNut · 2004-12-27 05:59:36

Anyone caring to go in the first place cares little about the time for they have already decided that it does not matter to them if they are going. What will matter is the dollars needed to go.

If we had only kept going lone ago we would never have been in this position in the first place. The much needed infrastructure would have been in place and cost would have come down, I would hope in the last 30 plus years that we have been floundering in LEO had we continued..

GCNRevenger · 2004-12-27 11:44:28

Simply a matter of economics really, to where would we have regular flights to and from near the end of the century? Mars is so far away and holds so little economic value of itself for Earth, that I don't think we will have regular flights of large spacecraft there without some technological breakthrough (or two) given the situation today.

The Moon however has Platinum and other things that might be worth digging up in bulk, which will require fairly regular flights to and from to support an economically signifigant mining operation. Such an operation and the vehicles needed to support it would eliminate the need for most of the development and infrastructure costs for a tourist operation, so that is probobly as far as the average person can go by 2075 or so.

RobS · 2004-12-27 12:10:03

Mars has platinum as well; and it has the carbon needed to extract it via the carbonyl process. If the moon has to import carbon from Earth I doubt PGMs can be extracted profitably.Mars has almost three times the delta-v to get the stuff to Earth, but each segment of the journey can be done by a single-stage reusable vehicle. Mars may also have gold.

-- RobS

GCNRevenger · 2004-12-27 12:20:21

The supply of Carbon isn't a deal-breaker for a Lunar base, all it means is that polymers and the occasional shipment of liquid CO2 will need to be sent from Earth. The amount required for a base for mining is small enough that shipping is practical with recycling. The carbonyl process is also not the only one available for metal refining.

Mars has a number of things going against it, like much lower sunlight, long wait times between launch windows, and the trouble of stronger gravity. A Lunar operation could be accomodated by SSTO RLVs as well, and is better suited to scaling operations since it is so much closer and since you can launch often. Add a true TSTO Shuttle on the Earth end and we'd be set. Oh, and a Lunar space elevator would be relativly easy, at least in theory.

Unless there is a propulsion breakthrough, like a GCNR nuclear rocket or a practical fusion rocket, then developing Mars for Earthly wealth is too far away to make sense, so there won't be large numbers of regular flights needed to give "most anybody" a chance to go.

RobertDyck · 2004-12-27 13:04:37

Platinum is easer to get through the carbonyl process from M-type iron asteroids, and near-Earth asteroids take less fuel round-trip than the Moon. That's due to the Moon's gravity. A C-type carbonaceous chondrite asteroid has carbon and hydrated minerals, and some C-type asteroids have ice. Those with ice are in the grey area between C-type asteroid and comet. A pair of near-Earth objects (M-type and ice-bearing C-type) would make better mining locations than the Moon. You won't get much aluminum or titanium from asteroids, but there's plenty of rocket fuel (LH2/LOX), platinum, iron, nickel, as well as carbon and industrial metals like magnesium, molybdenum, and chromium. You can make alloys like inconel and stainless steel. Asteroids have sunlight to power the mining operation 24/7 while the Moon has sunlight 14 days 18 hours and 22 minutes followed by an equal night. The only reasons go to the Moon are to test equipment for Mars, base space telescopes (solid base for interferometry planet-finder, or quiet zone on the far side for radio astronomy), or to mine aluminum or titanium.

RobS · 2004-12-27 13:10:57

GCN, what other processes are there, than carbon-based ones? Because the recycling of carbon will have to be pretty efficient. PGMs are one part in 30,000 to 50,000 for ordinary nickel-iron meteorites, and one part per 3,000 or 4,000 for the rare nickel-rich ones. That means one tonne of carbon has to be recycled 30,000 times to extract 1 tonne of PGMs using the carbonyl method. That strikes me as more efficiency than one can normally expect. If you can find the nickel-rich ataxites, even 3,000 recycles is a lot to expect. If you have to import ten tonnes or fifty tonnes of carbon for every tonne of PGM you extract, forget it.

As for the sunlight being weaker on Mars, this is true, but unless you can find your nickel-iron near the poles, the lunar deposits will have two weeks of darkness per month. That's a very expensive energy storage system; probably more expensive than tripling your solar array size.

The rare launch windows are a bigger problem, but if one uses solar sails that deliver cargo between the planets on a 12-24 month timeframe, transportatin would be reasonably cheap and PGMs wold be departing and arriving almost all the time; they'd just be spending a lot of time in transit. Getting stuff into low Mars orbit takes 60% more energy than launching stuff from the lunar surface to Earth space (8,000 mph versus 5,000 mph), but as we know, fuel is not the big expense in operating rockets.

The bigger issue would be infrastructure; I suspect you can't start mining PGMs without 50-100 people and a thousands tonnes of infrastructure, unless autmation makes enormous strides. It'll be easier to get that stuff to the moon because tourism will help drive down transportation costs. Of course, lunar transportation will also help drive down martian transportation costs, too, since the delta-v to Mars space and lunar space are about the same. And lunar PGM extraction will help rduced the costs and infrastructure for martian PGM extraction.

Right now Platinum is worth $800 per ounce; that's 27 million dollars per tonne.

-- RobS

Austin Stanley · 2004-12-27 15:09:03

Well PGM could be refined by the same method they are here on Earth, which is via flotation seperation then smelting then a complex series of percipitations in aqua regia. A carbonly refining process would still probably use the first and possibly the secound part of this process to raise the concentration of the ore.

But in the end the exact refining process is probably not that important, PGM are fairly rare, and even after you have found them in decent concentrations, you still have to mine several tons of dirt to get a single ounce. This makes me unsure as to if the metals can ever be extracted profitably.

Grypd · 2004-12-27 15:15:09

One process for the extraction of oxygen is using hydrogen to get oxygen and water from the mineral ilmentite(which is very commen on the moon). This process gives pure iron and titanium oxide as well. Both useful and important materials for any planned expansion on the moon.

But it really matters what we want to do with these materials we mine. Platinum group metals are rare on Earth and as there rarity increases it becomes that they will increase in value and as we can get them from space then we should if only to keep our economy going. So what do we do with the rest the aluminium, the titanium and so forth. It will be easier to work them into useful creations on the Moon and with a decent Mass driver it should be able to propel these to where we want them.

C M Edwards · 2004-12-27 15:41:05

You're forgetting another important limitation:

Many of us on this forum have discussed travel to Mars with our wives and husbands, and they won't let us go! :laugh:

BWhite · 2004-12-27 17:13:09

Right now Platinum is worth $800 per ounce; that's 27 million dollars per tonne.
-- RobS

370 tonnes will GROSS about $10 billion dollars, right? So what is the NET profit on that ten billion dollar investment?

Edited By BWhite on 1104189286

Vajper · 2004-12-27 17:56:58

I think I was born into the wrong generation. Maybe I should have been born in 2085
Damn time, it's always one step ahead

RobertDyck · 2004-12-27 18:54:13

Ok, numbers. According to http://www.rbc.com/economics/market/pdf/cpm.pdf]RBC Financial Group the average price of platinum was $846 per troy ounce for 2004, up from $693 for 2003. Worldwide production is about 150 tons per year, of which about 80% comes from the Bushveld Igneous Complex in South Africa, and 11% from the Noril'sk complex in northern Siberia. Another source says these two sources total 93% of world production. Secondary supply comes from Sudbury Canada, Western Australia, and Zimbabwe. Bushveld produces 5 grams of platinum per tonne of ore. By the way, when I toured the mine in Sudbury last June the tour guide said we were standing on the richest nickel and platinum deposit in the world, but it's over 8,000 feet down! Does anyone know how to get it out?

If you were able to send to Earth 20 metric tonnes of pure platinum per year, that would be 14.67% of worldwide production. That wouldn't affect the price beyond normal market fluctuations. At today's price, that's $27.2 million per metric tonne or $544 million per year. M-type asteroids can contain 5-62% nickel, one with 30% nickel could contain 26.83 ppm platinum, or 26.83 grams per tonne of ore. Typically 98.5% of M-type asteroids are iron, nickel, and cobalt; metals that can be extracted by the carbonyl process. Platinum is then smelted from concentrate with 1788.6 grams per tonne. How much would it cost to mine, concentrate and smelt an asteroid at the rate of 745,434 tonnes of ore per year? Could you find such an asteroid in near Earth orbit that masses ~20 million metric tonnes? Based on average density that would require 2,543,099 cubic metres or an average diameter of 248 metres. http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/neo/close.html]This NASA web page lists several objects that will pass close to Earth, the smallest is 15m-35m diameter, the largest is 920m-2.1km. You should be able to find one you can mine for a few decades.

Grypd · 2004-12-27 19:11:40

It really all depends on what we use this platinum for. At the moment it is heavily used by the Chemical and Electronics industries and with other smaller uses in jewelery, transport, power production. Its uses are possibly infinite but with the current prices and with the likelehood of this increasing as our supplies get harder to reach and the need for it increases.

Unlike the USA many of the worlds countries have gone into the Kyoto agreement and have signed up to reducing not only there CO2 emmissions but many industries find that they must reduce other emmisions as well. This means and I note not including the Hydrogen fuel economy an increase in Platinum demand that is unsustainable at the present supplies. If we where to add Dennis Wingos and real experts hydrogen fuel celled cars then it may be that mining of Platinum to return to Earth may well be the first commercial enterprise away from Earth orbit.

It also makes sense to start on the Moon as it has benefits to going after the circling Aten class asteroids mostly to do with short communication and direct sight. Also the limited gravity available on the Moon improves the operation of Mineral extraction. Something that we will struggle with on an Asteroid. But we will go to the Asteroids sometime but probably supplied by a developed Lunar base in doing so.

GCNRevenger · 2004-12-27 22:08:20

Platinum is easer to get through the carbonyl process from M-type iron asteroids, and near-Earth asteroids take less fuel round-trip than the Moon. That's due to the Moon's gravity. A C-type carbonaceous chondrite asteroid has carbon and hydrated minerals, and some C-type asteroids have ice. Those with ice are in the grey area between C-type asteroid and comet. A pair of near-Earth objects (M-type and ice-bearing C-type) would make better mining locations than the Moon. You won't get much aluminum or titanium from asteroids, but there's plenty of rocket fuel (LH2/LOX), platinum, iron, nickel, as well as carbon and industrial metals like magnesium, molybdenum, and chromium. You can make alloys like inconel and stainless steel. Asteroids have sunlight to power the mining operation 24/7 while the Moon has sunlight 14 days 18 hours and 22 minutes followed by an equal night. The only reasons go to the Moon are to test equipment for Mars, base space telescopes (solid base for interferometry planet-finder, or quiet zone on the far side for radio astronomy), or to mine aluminum or titanium.

The big thing you are overlooking is gravity... that gravity is not nessesarrily a bad thing. Doing all these operations in zero-g I think will be very difficult, and could alone make the whole idea of asteroid mining uneconomical. And as you know using 100% automation isn't practical, so humans would have to be stationed on the rock for extended periods, and it would be hard to bury or otherwise shield a spinning HAB complex heavily enough. Shifts would have to be kept short probobly.

Power on the Moon is an issue but not a deal-breaker, nuclear energy can be tapped on a large enough scale to do the job if the reactors' heat can be harnessed directly to process ore. A multiple megawatt reactor would only weigh a few tonnes when you skip the shielding. The HEU would only weigh about one tonne for a 5MWt reactor... Solar energy would be gravy. Energy storage by fuel cells is also an option for helping make up some of the difference.

As far as the smelting is concerned, microwave smelting can render raw ores into metal without any additive at all, and I bet that some mechanical or electrical method can be come up with to perform a crude seperation without additive either.

And since we'll be going back to the Moon and developing space reactors anyway, and with the trip being so short with about the same delta-V, the Moon with its gravity makes it the superior choice to asteroid mining. Quite a bit of Titanium and such there too...

Operations on Mars would be nice for the expansion of humanity, and could ultimatly be preferable, but I think that such an operation might entail a bigger infrastructure then a Lunar setup because of the large distances (big transit HABs/ERVs), larger Delta-V requirements (fuel factories, water drilling), and so on. The availability of carbon is handy though.

BWhite · 2004-12-28 00:01:13

If you were able to send to Earth 20 metric tonnes of pure platinum per year, that would be 14.67% of worldwide production. That wouldn't affect the price beyond normal market fluctuations. At today's price, that's $27.2 million per metric tonne or $544 million per year.

$544 million per year in GROSS revenue. And that will buy you two Delta IVH shots.

= = =

Not a bad side business if you have other reasons to be there, but hardly a reason to go in the first place.

Edited By BWhite on 1104213739

MarsDog · 2004-12-28 02:54:31

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

http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/income.php]Top 1% income equals bottom 57%

A number, possibly 0.1%, one in a thousand of US population, 300,000 people, could afford space tours, in the far future.

RobertDyck · 2004-12-28 11:15:24

$544 million per year in GROSS revenue. And that will buy you two Delta IVH shots.
Not a bad side business if you have other reasons to be there, but hardly a reason to go in the first place.

Then add in revenue from gold, palladium, iridium, rhodium, ruthenium, osmium, and even silver. Platinum binds with molten nickel and gold binds with molten iron. Any M-type asteroid was differentiated from rock in the molten core of a planetoid that was broken at some point, probably billions of years ago. That means any trade-off between nickel vs. iron results in a trade-off between platinum vs. gold. Hmm, less platinum means more gold, is this bad? Do you want me to calculate annual revenue from all precious metals?

An asteroid mine won't generate just precious metals. It will make inconel entry capsules to drop the bullion into Earth's atmosphere, which means it will have inconel for sale as an in-space manufactured product. It'll also produce thousands of tonnes of stainless steel per year as a by-product. The C-type asteroid partner mine will produce carbon monoxide as well as rocket fuel to return entry capsules to Earth. A fuel depot must be built to store rocket fuel, and those tanks can be made of the stainless steel produced. Once you have a large fuel depot in orbit, you can sell that fuel to other customers: satellites for placement or station keeping, space station for station keeping, or missions to the Moon or Mars. Future space stations could be built of stainless steel, nickel-steel, or inconel. Once you have large quantities of oxygen, hydrogen, and carbon delivered to a LEO space station, they can experiment with plastics production. Can you see a large 100-passenger or 1000-passenger ship to Mars made from in-space produced material? An asteroid mine is an integrated operation; platinum is just the most spectacular.

By the way, the estimated cost for a Delta IV Large in 1999 was $170 million per launch, but the Airforce just bought one for test at $154 million. Any terrestrial mining operation can expect easily 4-5 years revenue to pay for costs to build the mine. One steel producer in the early 1990s built a new steel furnace with a 10-year bank loan.

Getting back on topic, access to Mars for ordinary people is possible. Robert Zubrin in his book "The Case for Mars" talked about $300,000 per person for a one-way ticket to Mars. Inflation over the last 8 years might bring that closer to $500,000 but a ticket price that low will require a reusable surface to LEO passenger shuttle, and an interplanetary ship built from in-space produced materials. You see, all these different things I talk about have a single goal: getting settlers to Mars.

BWhite · 2004-12-28 11:50:02

Mining will be a terrific way to provide supplemental revenue yet I do not see sufficient income streams to expect mining and manufacturing to be the reason settlement (even robotic) is initiated. Besides, the political and legal hurdles remain undiminished. What about taxation of the revenue? Which government has soveriegnty over the miners? (What bank cases your customer's payments?)

In the 17th & 18th centuries (and before) agriculture and agricultural products were the mainstay of the economies of the West; In the 19th & 20th centuries industry (mining and manufacture) were on the cutting edge of making big profits;

In the 21st century, intangible and intellectual property is the fastest and easiest way to make money. Patents, copyrights and trademarks. Create a new iconic "killer brand label" and you can realize triple digit profit margins compared to actual investment capital. Green Giant veggies are grown by subcontractors and cherry-picked by buyers then put in Green Giant label cans. Little capital cost and little labor cost and big profit margins.

The difference between Dasani water and tap water? About $1.00 per bottle. ;-)

Platinum and silver and other options arbitrage will earn you more money than mining. You mine that asteroid and the folks at the CBOT will skim your profit. Heh! That said, how about mining a platinum asteroid and demanding pay-offs to refrain from dumping hundreds of tonnes of platinum on Terra?

Find diamonds and crack DeBeers, etc. . .

Thus, no one will let you mine that asteroid (citing taxes, regulations, national security considerations, etc. . . as the pretext) without consent of the big mine owners here on Earth.

= = =

If you really want to mine asteroids, Russia is where you should go. Share the profits with Putin and offer to buy lots and lots of cheap Russian rockets and maybe you are in business.

Edited By BWhite on 1104256436

RobertDyck · 2004-12-28 12:37:44

Well, I was intending to build asteroid mining equipment and sell it to an established terrestrial mining company. If no mining company wants to invest then I would establish one mine pair (M-type & C-type) to prove it works, then continue to operate that mine to maintain the longest space mine operational experience; that experience could be sold as consulting fees and seminars to potential space miners. Supporting the mining industry, not competing with it, should avoid the unfair business practices and government corruption you imply. Is the American government really so corrupt that it has been bought and paid for by large corporations?

Taxes? Same as any other business. Wouldn't the American government want asteroid mining to be based from their country so they can tax it? Jurisdiction would be which ever state the corporate head office is registered in. Regulations? As Jim Benson said, sometimes it's better to ask forgiveness than permission. If regulatory bodies get too restrictive, space mining companies can just base themselves out of the Cayman Islands where there's no regulation and has the benefit of no tax.

As for re-selling a product produced by someone else: that'll always exist. There will also be people who bypass the middlemen and buy directly from original suppliers. Why do you think store brands cost less yet have larger profit margins than big brand names? The economy is supported by those who produce stuff; middlemen and arbitrageurs are leaches. If you want a robust national economy, you have to look at where stuff comes from.

Dasani water: oh don't get me started. For years I laughed at people in big cities like New York paying $1/bottle for water when you could get it from a tap. Local water was one of the best on the continent until the native reservation in which the source lake is located decided to sell land for cottages. The city tried to buy land around that lake, but the native people wanted business from cottagers (groceries, etc.). Water quality might not be quite what it was, but it's still better than many cities. However the news of cottagers was played-up by salespeople and now as many Winnipegers buy bottled water as anywhere else in North America. We even had some salespeople try to convince customers not to refill their water bottles, claiming it's a health risk. If dishes washed in your own sink are safe to eat off, and tap water is safe to drink then you can refill your water bottle. You may want to wash the bottle once in a while. If you filter water in your city, then refill your bottle with filtered water. Any mark who pays $1/bottle for water is a fool. (Ok, it's too late, I did "get started".)

BWhite · 2004-12-28 14:18:35

Robert, I do not really disagree with you on the underlying issues. But as a lawyer and not an engineer, I can say the world really is a very complicated place and most illogical if examined rationally.

(Edit: As a scientist, you must admit Dasani does sell, no matter how irrational it may seem to you, and me. Starbucks, by the way, really does make better coffee, or so I tell myself, every day. . .)

= = =

Corruption? Such an ugly word! :;):

If a US company started mining, the rest of the world would scream and demand a percentage of their "common heritage" - - $500 million per year isn't enough for the State Department to fight those battles, IMHO. If a Russian flag operation got going, the US State Department would start screaming about the need for international treaties to "regulate" such things before the Russkies ruled the heavens.

But if mining is performed ancillary to another activity, for example a UN Mars mission offsets costs by shipping methane to Luna (made with Sabatiers on Mars) then you have political allies and cover for the revenue generated.

You see, then its not about profit, its about saving taxpayer money. Doublespeak? Well, yeah. And your point is?

Edit: Also, some grandstanding politician somewhere in the world or in the US of A - - GOP-ers can visualize Eliot Spitzer, although I rather like him myself - - might well decide to confiscate assets of your company if your legal "T's" are not properly crossed, even if they change the rules mid-stream.

= = =

Dasani? See, I hit a nerve.

Imagine you are a Wall Street investment banker and two business plans are presented for your investment.

One is asteroid mining. Capital intensive and high risk with marginal profit, maybe. The other is put tap water in a funny bottle, spend a few million on advertising, and earn triple digit profits percentages.

Which do you choose? ???

For better or worse, creating "killer brands" - - Dasani, Coca Cola, Nike, Gap, Starbucks - - will make more money faster than almost any other business you can start up these days.

My 4 year old son likes to play a golf game on our PC. A few days ago he asked me, "Daddy, why does Tiger Woods have that funny mark on his cap?"

= = =

Nike, Reebok and Adidas together spend $2 billion per year on endorsements. That is four times the revenue stream that will arise from mining 20 tonnes of platinum.

Sticking a logo on a spacesuit will make money far faster and easier than mining or manufacturing. What is your downside expense? ZERO

Endorsement revenue or selling media rights to landings creates gross revenue with almost no added expense.

Edited By BWhite on 1104266170

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-12-26 21:01:55

Re: Ordinary people...?

#2 2004-12-26 21:37:00

Re: Ordinary people...?

#3 2004-12-26 22:20:47

Re: Ordinary people...?

#4 2004-12-26 23:51:50

Re: Ordinary people...?

#5 2004-12-27 00:51:21

Re: Ordinary people...?

#6 2004-12-27 05:59:36

Re: Ordinary people...?

#7 2004-12-27 11:44:28

Re: Ordinary people...?

#8 2004-12-27 12:10:03

Re: Ordinary people...?

#9 2004-12-27 12:20:21

Re: Ordinary people...?

#10 2004-12-27 13:04:37

Re: Ordinary people...?

#11 2004-12-27 13:10:57

Re: Ordinary people...?

#12 2004-12-27 15:09:03

Re: Ordinary people...?

#13 2004-12-27 15:15:09

Re: Ordinary people...?

#14 2004-12-27 15:41:05

Re: Ordinary people...?

#15 2004-12-27 17:13:09

Re: Ordinary people...?

#16 2004-12-27 17:56:58

Re: Ordinary people...?

#17 2004-12-27 18:54:13

Re: Ordinary people...?

#18 2004-12-27 19:11:40

Re: Ordinary people...?

#19 2004-12-27 22:08:20

Re: Ordinary people...?

#20 2004-12-28 00:01:13

Re: Ordinary people...?

#21 2004-12-28 02:54:31

Re: Ordinary people...?

#22 2004-12-28 11:15:24

Re: Ordinary people...?

#23 2004-12-28 11:50:02

Re: Ordinary people...?

#24 2004-12-28 12:37:44

Re: Ordinary people...?

#25 2004-12-28 14:18:35

Re: Ordinary people...?

Board footer