4Frontiers

Dook · 2005-11-08 18:37:46

It's probably possible for them to get $30 million from a few of the billionaires interested in space exploration but is that going to be enough?

MIT guys huh? Well I'm sure there is much that they can build themselves for much less than NASA would pay:
-Tin can space transportation vehicle that acts as a mars lander and temporary mars habitat
-Pressurized mars exploration vehicle
-Small truck to move regolith and haul ice
-Solar panels
-Inflatable greenhouse
-Communications equipment

Other things they can buy:
-PGM reactor for power
-carbon dioxide to oxygen converters
-pressure suits
-LOX and liquid hydrogen
-MRE type dry food

But they need a heavy lift vehicle which won't be cheap.

And they will need a lot of spare parts, food supplies, and oxygen shipments.

2025 is much too optimistic. If they do go by then the risk will be unacceptable.

GCNRevenger · 2005-11-08 18:40:37

Oh it will be done some day, just not any time soon...

Let me rephrase that... nobody can do it starting with either zero infrastructure or essentially zero startup capital, and 4Frontiers has neither. $30M isn't nothing, but with the cost of labor/engineering, machining, and control hardware of modern space craft it just isn't possible to DO much but make big ideas.

And unless they are banking on some rich guy sending them a check with nine digits, just how are they going to rake in any real money? Their "business model" is non-exsistant when we're talking the sums of money to contemplate building a Mars base.

I imagine that it would cost around a billion dollars or two for Russia to scrape together a high-risk expendable circum-martian mission for two or three using pre-exsisting hardware (Soyuz, Energia, Mir-II copies)... Which would be a PR coup to be sure, but would amount to exactly nothing except to show off old Russia rockets.

If they had a few billion in hand, and NASA already had a foothold Mars base and a true Shuttle-II, then yeah maybe... but otherwise, I just don't see how anyone could possibly take them seriously. They're about as bad as the "International Space Agency," except with a little money.

noosfractal · 2005-11-09 03:06:20

Let me rephrase that... nobody can do it starting with either zero infrastructure or essentially zero startup capital, and 4Frontiers has neither. $30M isn't nothing, but with the cost of labor/engineering, machining, and control hardware of modern space craft it just isn't possible to DO much but make big ideas.
And unless they are banking on some rich guy sending them a check with nine digits, just how are they going to rake in any real money? Their "business model" is non-exsistant when we're talking the sums of money to contemplate building a Mars base.

Right, the $30M isn't going to fund a Mars base, it isn't even going to fund the PR mock-up they want to build. The $30M just gets them into low financial orbit so that they can try for the next round of funding. The Mars base isn't going to happen until after IPO and before that I bet they try asteroid mining to get some serious revenue on the board. If they get lucky with some patents, they won't even need to do that.

They have a shot at this. There are a dozen ways for them to crash and burn, and most likely they'll be bought up by a bigger company before they launch their first ton, but, hey, if you don't play you can't win
_

GCNRevenger · 2005-11-09 07:46:40

I assume you are familiar with the term "vanishingly small" right?

I don't think these guys have any real chance at all. None. Zero. Their goal is patently impossible without a massive eleven-digit budget, and the chances that they could gather that kind of money with any kind of space-centric business model are non-exsistant.

Asteroid mining isn't going to be an income source, not for a long, long time anyway, which means every penny has got to come from some Earth-based product or service. There just isn't anything they've got to offer for that kind of money.

And trying to sell Martian real-estate before they have a base? Please, nobody sane would take that huge of a financial risk!

They are either insane, counting on a stupid rich bennefactor, or like you suggest are trying to get bought by another AltSpace company.

Martian Republic · 2005-11-09 11:39:03

Let me rephrase that... nobody can do it starting with either zero infrastructure or essentially zero startup capital, and 4Frontiers has neither. $30M isn't nothing, but with the cost of labor/engineering, machining, and control hardware of modern space craft it just isn't possible to DO much but make big ideas.
And unless they are banking on some rich guy sending them a check with nine digits, just how are they going to rake in any real money? Their "business model" is non-exsistant when we're talking the sums of money to contemplate building a Mars base.
Right, the $30M isn't going to fund a Mars base, it isn't even going to fund the PR mock-up they want to build. The $30M just gets them into low financial orbit so that they can try for the next round of funding. The Mars base isn't going to happen until after IPO and before that I bet they try asteroid mining to get some serious revenue on the board. If they get lucky with some patents, they won't even need to do that.
They have a shot at this. There are a dozen ways for them to crash and burn, and most likely they'll be bought up by a bigger company before they launch their first ton, but, hey, if you don't play you can't win
_

I'm going to go one step further. Not only can it not be done within the current technological boundaries that we are dealing with, without government involvement, it impossible to do it. Baring some super brain that invents a new kind of space ship that doesn't use either Chemical or Nuclear power, but is based on a whole new set of physical principle that we don't know about, then what your talking about can't happen. That space ship would have to be able to take off from Earth without having a throw away most of it ship or with it needing large fuel tanks so it could be able to fly to Mars in two week to two month travel time and land on Mars and then be able to come back to the Earth also. Unless some hot shot inventor being able to develop that new technology, then able a build a working model, then they don't have a viable plan or have any chance at all at seceding in there efforts.

You either have to have the infrastructure in place or have a space ship that can do this or your just like a dog that howling at the moon as it make it trek across the night sky as though your howling is going to stop the moon in it track or something.

Unless they can either get a government signed contract with a promise to build needed infrastructure or they can come up with this super space ship, they don't have a plain. I personally don’t see a super space ship on the horizon, so that means there will have to be some government built infrastructure put into place or you can forget. Sorry about that, but that the way it is.

Larry,

noosfractal · 2005-11-09 12:51:54

I assume you are familiar with the term "vanishingly small" right?
I don't think these guys have any real chance at all. None. Zero. Their goal is patently impossible without a massive eleven-digit budget, and the chances that they could gather that kind of money with any kind of space-centric business model are non-exsistant.
Asteroid mining isn't going to be an income source, not for a long, long time anyway, which means every penny has got to come from some Earth-based product or service. There just isn't anything they've got to offer for that kind of money.
never, never, never, impossible, impossible, impossible, can't be done, etc

Yes, yes. Very sensible. Very safe. You have some august company ...

"..so many centuries after the Creation it is unlikely that anyone could
find hitherto unknown lands of any value." - committee advising Ferdinand
and Isabella regarding Columbus' proposal, 1486

"Drill for oil? You mean drill into the ground to try and find oil?
You're crazy." - Drillers who Edwin L. Drake tried to enlist to his
project to drill for oil in 1859.

"Everything that can be invented has been invented." - Charles H.
Duell, Commissioner, U.S. Office of Patents, 1899.

"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible." - Lord Kelvin,
president, Royal Society, 1895.

"There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be
obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at
will." -- Albert Einstein, 1932

"The whole procedure [of shooting rockets into space]...presents
difficulties of so fundamental a nature, that we are forced to dismiss the
notion as essentially impracticable, in spite of the author's insistent
appeal to put aside prejudice and to recollect the supposed impossibility
of heavier-than-air flight before it was actually accomplished." Richard
van der Riet Wooley, British astronomer, reviewing P.E. Cleator's "Rockets
in Space", Nature, March 14, 1936

"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers." - Thomas
Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943

"There is practically no chance communications space satellites will be
used to provide better telephone, telegraph, television, or radio
service inside the Unided States." -T. Craven, FCC Commissioner, 1961

"We don't like their sound, and guitar music is on the way out." -
Decca Recording Co. rejecting the Beatles, 1962.

"The concept is interesting and well-formed, but in order to earn
better than a 'C,' the idea must be feasible." - A Yale University
management professor in response to Fred Smith's paper proposing
reliable overnight delivery service. (Smith went on to found Federal
Express Corp.)
_

noosfractal · 2005-11-09 12:58:59

That space ship would have to be able to take off from Earth without having a throw away most of it ship or with it needing large fuel tanks so it could be able to fly to Mars in two week to two month travel time and land on Mars and then be able to come back to the Earth also.

This is a completely arbitrary requirement. There are many things upon which the success of a Martian colony depends. This is not one of them.
_

GCNRevenger · 2005-11-09 15:33:25

But there is one real fundimental difference noosfractal, one that makes your wishful thinking completly irrational...

...that 4Fronteir's main obsticle are the laws of physics

Nobody, not Columbus or the Wrights or anyone else has ever been up against the laws of physics like this before. Nobody.

The fact of the matter is that the amount of energy available per mass of propellant, the denisty of the propellants, and the immutable tyrany of the rocket equation means that large-scale space travel is very hard. These problems are not going to go away, that no amount of cleverness or innovation or entrapenural spirit & skill will make one single iotia of difference.

And things that are hard, are expensive. Given the scale of the engineering, the infrastructure, and the manufacture of all the things needed for a credible Mars base is going to cost alot of money, even if not a single penny of profit is made by anyone.

It is all a matter of degree, and the degree of difficulty of getting to Mars and building a base is probobly one of the hardest things that we can practically do that isn't patently impossible or ruinous. This difficulty is so high, that even tens or hundreds of millions of dollars would hardly be a drop in the bucket.

In the quotations given, Mr Richard van der Riet Wooley was wrong only by a matter of degree. His same opinion of the 4Fronteir's goals is directly applicable today, that building a base on Mars presents difficulties of so fundamental a nature, that we are forced to dismiss the notion as essentially impracticable, in spite of the author's insistent appeal to put aside prejudice and to recollect the supposed impossibility of simply being able to launch a minimal rocket into orbit.

And how does 4Fronteirs aim to generate eleven-digit sums of money? How? They have nothing to offer anyone but a few patents and empty promises of what they could do if given an obscene amount of money, and that is not a business model.

Commodore · 2005-11-09 16:27:12

This reminds me of the Underpants Gnomes of South Park Lore.

I whole heartedly support 4Frontiers efforts to research, develop and design space mining equipment and methods. Someday someone will make a mint on it. But that day is at least a quarter to a half century away. These people will either never be heard from again, or will eventually stand with the Morgans, Vanderbuilts, Carnegies, Rockafellers, Fords, and Gates.

If they can survive that long, all power to them. Though I wouldn't base my business on something that is at the moment is completely dependent on the whims of the goverment and a seperate industry.

Martian Republic · 2005-11-09 17:23:48

That space ship would have to be able to take off from Earth without having a throw away most of it ship or with it needing large fuel tanks so it could be able to fly to Mars in two week to two month travel time and land on Mars and then be able to come back to the Earth also.
This is a completely arbitrary requirement. There are many things upon which the success of a Martian colony depends. This is not one of them.
_

It not an arbitrary requirement. If you can't get there or get there with enough resources along with people because you don’t have the transportation system to do it, then your idea is a dead issue.

Now don't consider me small minded, because I'm the guy that says that we should make it a national goal to build a city Mars in fifty years time. But, that was based on US Government commitment to the project to commit hundreds of billions to maybe several trillion dollars over a fifty year period. If there is no government commitment to the project, there is no city. Your in the same boat with me whether you like it or don't like it. Trying to deny that that is the case won’t change the matter one bit. All your doing is deluding yourself wishful thinking that it could happen anyway.

Larry,

Dook · 2005-11-09 17:26:34

It seems to me that some very smart MIT guys could do a lot with $30 million if they know how to design and build much of the required equipment themselves.

The big cost is a heavy lift vehicle and the necessary and constant resupply missions.

But just because they can doesn't mean they should. It's too much risk. You don't go to mars on the cheap.

Martian Republic · 2005-11-09 17:26:45

That space ship would have to be able to take off from Earth without having a throw away most of it ship or with it needing large fuel tanks so it could be able to fly to Mars in two week to two month travel time and land on Mars and then be able to come back to the Earth also.
This is a completely arbitrary requirement. There are many things upon which the success of a Martian colony depends. This is not one of them.
_

It not an arbitrary requirement. If you can't get there or get there with enough resources along with people because you don’t have the transportation system to do it, then your idea is a dead issue.

Now don't consider me small minded, because I'm the guy that says that we should make it a national goal to build a city Mars in fifty years time. But, that was based on US Government commitment to the project to commit hundreds of billions to maybe several trillion dollars over a fifty year period. If there is no government commitment to the project, there is no city. Your in the same boat with me whether you like it or don't like it. Trying to deny that that is the case won’t change the matter one bit. All your doing is deluding yourself with wishful thinking that it could happen anyway.

Larry,

GCNRevenger · 2005-11-09 17:43:51

It seems to me that some very smart MIT guys could do a lot with $30 million if they know how to design and build much of the required equipment themselves.
The big cost is a heavy lift vehicle and the necessary and constant resupply missions.
But just because they can doesn't mean they should. It's too much risk. You don't go to mars on the cheap.

Apparently some of us have not been paying attention...

It matters not one single bit how smart you are, your intelligence won't magically make Hydrogen burn hotter or make gravity less powerful. Thus, there is no choice, no choice at all as commanded by the combination of chemistry, gravity, and the rocket equation that you will either need very big rockets or a very large number of smaller rockets to move base building materials to Mars.

And big, carefully engineerd rockets are going to cost money. Lots of money. It doesn't matter how smart you are, people somewhere are going to have to build the rockets, and they aren't going to work for free... Same with building the Mars ship, nuclear reactor, ISRU plant, water drill rig, etc... And the scale and complexity of these things is very high. As size and complexity increase, so does the cost, and hence $30M or even $300M just won't get you very far.

Its more than "Mars with high risk," its not just "hard but risky," it simply can't be done.

noosfractal · 2005-11-09 18:03:12

Mr Richard van der Riet Wooley was wrong only by a matter of degree. His same opinion of the 4Fronteir's goals is directly applicable today, that building a base on Mars presents difficulties of so fundamental a nature, that we are forced to dismiss the notion as essentially impracticable, in spite of the author's insistent appeal to put aside prejudice and to recollect the supposed impossibility of simply being able to launch a minimal rocket into orbit.

Do you really not see the irony of quoting van der Riet Wooley in support of your argument? The guy was wrong. He was one of the most respected scientists in the world, he had access to a whole community of genius, and he was wrong. Probably some engineer said to him "well, maybe if you build it out of Titanium but that stuff costs $10000 per gram, it'd cost you $100 billion dollars." Impossible, never, can't be done. What did he say when the headlines read "REDS ORBIT ARTIFICIAL MOON" and "SOVIET SATELLITE CIRCLES GLOBE EVERY 90 MINUTES"? "Well, hrumph, who could have possibly predicted that technology x, y and z would become available." Is that what you'll say?
_

noosfractal · 2005-11-09 18:20:45

If you can't get there or get there with enough resources along with people because you don’t have the transportation system to do it, then your idea is a dead issue.

^^^ This is obvious.

That space ship would have to be able to take off from Earth without having a throw away most of it ship or with it needing large fuel tanks so it could be able to fly to Mars in two week to two month travel time and land on Mars and then be able to come back to the Earth also.

^^^ This is an arbitrary requirement.

The two are very different.

You can ensure failure by prematurely reducing your solution space.

But why would you want to do that?
_

noosfractal · 2005-11-09 18:26:43

It seems to me that some very smart MIT guys could do a lot with $30 million if they know how to design and build much of the required equipment themselves.
The big cost is a heavy lift vehicle and the necessary and constant resupply missions.
But just because they can doesn't mean they should. It's too much risk. You don't go to mars on the cheap.

No, no, the $30M is like the spark from rubbing sticks together. Now they have to build the bonfire.
_

GCNRevenger · 2005-11-09 19:34:37

Mr Richard van der Riet Wooley was wrong only by a matter of degree. His same opinion of the 4Fronteir's goals is directly applicable today, that building a base on Mars presents difficulties of so fundamental a nature, that we are forced to dismiss the notion as essentially impracticable, in spite of the author's insistent appeal to put aside prejudice and to recollect the supposed impossibility of simply being able to launch a minimal rocket into orbit.
Do you really not see the irony of quoting van der Riet Wooley in support of your argument? The guy was wrong. He was one of the most respected scientists in the world, he had access to a whole community of genius, and he was wrong. Probably some engineer said to him "well, maybe if you build it out of Titanium but that stuff costs $10000 per gram, it'd cost you $100 billion dollars." Impossible, never, can't be done. What did he say when the headlines read "REDS ORBIT ARTIFICIAL MOON" and "SOVIET SATELLITE CIRCLES GLOBE EVERY 90 MINUTES"? "Well, hrumph, who could have possibly predicted that technology x, y and z would become available." Is that what you'll say?
_

But this is different, because this time, its TRUE

The number one problem with rockets that cannot be surmounted is that you only get a certain amount of energy for a certain mass of rocket fuel. The mass of the fuel is controlled by the mass of the atomic nucleus, and the thing is we are already using the lightest practical atoms. Hydrogen imparticularly has the lowest possible atomic mass, with only one particle in the nucleus, and Oxygen is number two on the list of oxidizing power per mass.

We can't make lighter fuels because there are no lighter fuels, you can't make a fuel with less than one particle in the nucelus, or a potent reducing agent with much less than sixteen, and so we are very close to the best possible chemical fuels. And this is what truely makes 4Fronteirs's goal simply impossible.

Even if you had a magic rocket where the fuel tanks had zero mass, even a modest rocket like the Delta-IV Medium would still not be able to carry as much as a single Saturn-V or so, which wouldn't even get a basic NASA DRM hab to Mars. Current rockets are built mostly of Aluminum, which also has a pretty low atomic mass as far as metals go (one of the lowest infact), which isn't going to get a whole lot better. Even if you used expensive carbon composites, the improvement would only be marginal and not revolutionary because you are running up against the minimum nuclear mass of useable atoms.

Its all about the mass, and the trouble is, there aren't any atoms that are lighter... So, as far as the rockets go, Mr. Wooley would be right on the money about ultra-cheap Mars missions.

GCNRevenger · 2005-11-09 19:38:23

It seems to me that some very smart MIT guys could do a lot with $30 million if they know how to design and build much of the required equipment themselves.
The big cost is a heavy lift vehicle and the necessary and constant resupply missions.
But just because they can doesn't mean they should. It's too much risk. You don't go to mars on the cheap.
No, no, the $30M is like the spark from rubbing sticks together. Now they have to build the bonfire.
_

Nonsense, because they don't have any real way to make more money. Not the kind of money needed to credibly talk about Mars missions... Their business model is simply a non-exsistant joke.

RobertDyck · 2005-11-09 20:33:55

...

noosfractal · 2005-11-10 00:49:09

Well, not a good start for 4Frontiers in losing Robert, but hopefully they'll get their act together. If not, sounds like there are others eager to take their place.
_

Dook · 2005-11-10 12:36:56

And people have the nerve to complain about how the government does business?

It sounds to me like they place is run by children. Also I didn't know it was a for profit business. They certainly won't get a penny from me. I have more faith in NASA.

John Creighton · 2005-11-10 13:02:13

And people have the nerve to complain about how the government does business?
It sounds to me like they place is run by children. Also I didn't know it was a for profit business. They certainly won't get a penny from me. I have more faith in NASA.

They might have a legitimate business plan but it wouldn’t be for going to mars. As any business plan to go to mars would be highly speculative at this point. If I had money to invest I wouldn’t invest in them either since I don’t know what there business plan is. I would at least like to see some revenue statements first.

Stormrage · 2005-12-04 15:57:40

I know you guys probably don't care but i found a link to an interview with Joseph E. Palaia,. Co founder of 4frontier and nad a Vice in Opertations and R&D.

http://www.spacealumni.com/index.php?op … 5&Itemid=9

(17:09 GMT) What do you anticipate will be 4Frontier's primary sources of funding? How about for other future extraterrestrial settlement efforts?
4Frontiers will obtain its initial funding from a mixture of venture capital and private investment. We are making great strides in this area. For now all I can say is that we have raised approximately $1M in investment and… stay tuned!
Of course, even at the end of our 5 year plan, we will still be perhaps a $50M to $100M company. One might ask, how does a company like that settle Mars? My answer is that it is a good question, and one which we are going to continue working hard to solve. We have some ideas, which I won't go into now, but what we do know is that we need to take the initial steps we have outlined in our 5-year business plan. This includes:
* • Expanding our team and having them work full-time on engineering the systems we need.
* • Supporting that team and the management team – via near term activities and revenue streams.
* • Adding capability and building credibility while continuing corporate expansion.
* • Sharing the vision with the public (outreach center and other outreach activities).
* • Seeking strategic partners (academia, corporations, government agencies, and like minded individuals).
We hope to have an IPO near the end of our 5 year plan, with the idea being that this will help us generate capital for our next large project.

GCNRevenger · 2005-12-04 21:28:02

I don't see much in here except "mooch off SpaceX, stupid investors, and universities" ...where is the "get weapons-grade uranium for nuke plant" or "procure methane-burner engines" and whatnot?

BWhite · 2005-12-04 21:45:48

I don't see much in here except "mooch off SpaceX, stupid investors, and universities" ...where is the "get weapons-grade uranium for nuke plant" or "procure methane-burner engines" and whatnot?

Years ago (pre-9/11 and I had just read "Case for Mars") I came across a bulletin board run by some bootstrappers who had the odd idea the US government would freely permit them to purchase a few dozen pounds of bomb grade uranium or plutonium to run surface reactors on Mars.

They thought I was paranoid to suggest that the US government might oppose their acqusition of those items.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2005-11-08 18:37:46

Re: 4Frontiers

#52 2005-11-08 18:40:37

Re: 4Frontiers

#53 2005-11-09 03:06:20

Re: 4Frontiers

#54 2005-11-09 07:46:40

Re: 4Frontiers

#55 2005-11-09 11:39:03

Re: 4Frontiers

#56 2005-11-09 12:51:54

Re: 4Frontiers

#57 2005-11-09 12:58:59

Re: 4Frontiers

#58 2005-11-09 15:33:25

Re: 4Frontiers

#59 2005-11-09 16:27:12

Re: 4Frontiers

#60 2005-11-09 17:23:48

Re: 4Frontiers

#61 2005-11-09 17:26:34

Re: 4Frontiers

#62 2005-11-09 17:26:45

Re: 4Frontiers

#63 2005-11-09 17:43:51

Re: 4Frontiers

#64 2005-11-09 18:03:12

Re: 4Frontiers

#65 2005-11-09 18:20:45

Re: 4Frontiers

#66 2005-11-09 18:26:43

Re: 4Frontiers

#67 2005-11-09 19:34:37

Re: 4Frontiers

#68 2005-11-09 19:38:23

Re: 4Frontiers

#69 2005-11-09 20:33:55

Re: 4Frontiers

#70 2005-11-10 00:49:09

Re: 4Frontiers

#71 2005-11-10 12:36:56

Re: 4Frontiers

#72 2005-11-10 13:02:13

Re: 4Frontiers

#73 2005-12-04 15:57:40

Re: 4Frontiers

#74 2005-12-04 21:28:02

Re: 4Frontiers

#75 2005-12-04 21:45:48

Re: 4Frontiers

Board footer