New Mars Forums

One thing I would suggest for early Martian settlements would be to send homogenous groups of people to Mars.  This isn't my idea.  You can read all about it in 'On to Mars', the article "Dissident Colonies" on page 208.

The authors state that small groups of people isolated from larger society living in a harsh environment will function better and be more successful if they have more things in common and don't feel like they fit in the larger society.

For example: the Pilgrims set off to America to escape religious persecution.  They were a homogenous group and were quite successful.  We still carry their ideas and values with us today.
Also: the Mormons (Latter-Day Saints) did the same thing and colonized Utah.  They are now over 10 million strong.

I would guess that is the way things would be on Mars.  Small groups of people that have a lot in common (religous groups, political groups, Mars lovers, etc.) and would rather be free of the old Earth will be the first colonists.

It would be analogous to early America but it would address the issues that face us today (or in the near future).  These groups might be fleeing the USA for freedom of privacy.  Or they might go there to test out there political ideas that have no chance in America's two party system.

I think there will be less poverty, starvation, homelessness, etc. because the first colonists will be more educated and because as a society we have evolved a little bit beyond the America of the 1700's.  Owning slaves, running sweatshops, and working children in coal mines are just a few of our bad habits that are frowned upon today.

Now as you can tell, my ideas have a strong American bias.  So, take what I say with a grain of salt.  I do think though, that a majority of early colonists will be American or 'western thinkers' simply because America and the west are pioneers in space and have the greatest number of wealthy people and strong economies.

I have noticed that some people in here haven't read some books that I feel are obvious reads for a Mars group.
So, I was just curious.  What have you read?

The First Hundred are the first colonists to land on Mars in the book "Red Mars".  They called there first home (on Lunae Planum) 'Underhill'.

By the way, this message board is set up using names from that book - 'Acheron Labs', 'Dorsa Brevia', 'Underhill'.

It's a good read.  I highly recommend it.

This is one of the main concerns to my proposition:

To raise $10 billion by selling tickets at $1,000 each you need to sell 10 million tickets.

Here are just a few numbers I worked up to address this concern:

1.  Let's say I'm an excellent salesman. I sell $15 million in tickets the first year and increase my sales by 45% anually.  And I get them all to reinvest $1,000 each year. (Whoever has the most invested in their ticket gets to go first.)  After 15 years I would have raised $10.8 billion and only 2.5 million tickets would have been sold.  Of course, if they didn't add $1,000 every year 8.7 million would be expecting a ride.  (All examples assume a 10% yearly return using 1% to pay for the fund raising.[9% actual yearly return])
2.  What if I'm a mediocre salesman or not many people even want to live on Mars?  Let's say I can only sell $30 million worth of tickets per year.  Even at that, in 40 years I will have raised $10.1 billion.  And since I used 40 years of interest accrual, I only need to send 1.2 million people.  The original ticket holders will probably be too old to go themselves but they might still be around to see the start of colonization.
3.  Let's say I'm just a loser and can't sell worth a darn.  I only enlist the support of 5,000 Mars Society members the first year.  After that I don't sell one single ticket.  Well this makes good news and bad news.  The good news is - I will only have to send 5,000 people to Mars.  The bad news is - the original purchasers will be dead.  In 88 years the $5 million will have matured to $10.2 billion.  But hey, at least someone will be assured of a ticket to Mars.  (Assuming this world isn't torn apart by war before then. But that's for another discussion.)

So, 10 million tickets will never be sold, unless I sell them all in the first year (highly unlikely).  If that happens though, I will simply open the bidding for who gets to go first. If people were excited enough to buy me out in one short year, they will easily spend 10 to hundreds of times more.  And if businesses start backing them, just imagine what kind of money that would bring in.

Now, clark, for the financial issues:

First of all, the 10% interest I quoted is the average of the stock market over the last 100 years.  Even with the great depression and two world wars the average has been 10%.  Don't let the current ressesion scare you.  10% is a very conservative estimate.

Next, let's say we build some cycling Earth-Mars ships.  These could be based on Zubrin's 24 person "habcraft" (Case for Mars p.231).  But instead of landing them we can just unload and refuel them with Zubrin's NIMF vehicles.  Each habcraft would cost around $1 billion.
Now, if we increase our production by only 18% per year (doubling the number of cyclers every 4 years) we can put 2 million people on Mars within 100 years.  In the example below I've rounded up to 25 people per habcraft for simplicity.

year     people
  0         25
  2         25
  4         50
  6         50
  8        100
10        100
12        200
14        200
16        400
  .           .
  .           .
  .           .
54       204800
56       409600
58       409600

Just total the people column and you'll see what I mean.

I'll be back to show how we can keep the number of immigrants at around 2 million instead of 10 million.

I'm trying to find a good way to finance the colonization of Mars.  So, here's just a little poll.

Let's say I establish a fund to colonize Mars.
We all buy tickets to eventually emigrate, say for $1000 each.
We let the fund grow to $10 billion all the while selling more and more tickets.
We invest in the market and get a 10% return on average.
Once the fund reaches $10 billion we start sending people to Mars using only the yearly interest earned.

Tell me what you think.
I came up with a much more detailed plan.  If you're interested just ask.

Great dicktice,
Show me the money and I'll go.

Those are great ideas.  I just don't think you could get one off the ground. Firing a nuclear rocket in the atmosphere just scares too many people. I'm sure that in a few decades after they've been shown to be safe in space use they will be considered for ground launch.

Ok guys... what are you doing???
It looks like your on the wrong track.

My business plans include everything you've been suggesting.  But I don't expect that selling directly to the public will do more than break even.  The true value of diseminating info to the public is PR.  We just need to give people an adventure.  The Mars astronauts aren't going to be in a tin can for the exciting parts of the trip, so why even bother talking about it.  Let's just show people what its like to explore an untouched planet.

That's very nice and all but not very profitable.  Now let's see...who has the big bucks...?  Large organizations!

My business plan is simple.  We build the vehicles to get people to Mars and then sell these vehicles to big buyers.  Imagine how embarrased the current U.S. president will be when a private company leapfrogs NASA and puts people on Mars.  Well, he'll just have to order a bunch of rockets to put his own men up there.  He'll definitely have to if he sees us selling the same vehicles to Russia, China, Europe, Brazil, Japan, etc.
So, I propose we start another space race. Whoever gets the most people to Mars wins!

We definitely need to unite!

I'm no war fanatic, but the old tactic of 'divide and conquer' definitely applies here. Our enemy is doubt. Doubt is everywhere I read about Mars exploration. Investors doubt that there will be profits. Politicians doubt that it will get them reelected. Even some Mars Society members doubt that their donations will actually get humans to Mars.

Now, I know that the many space exploration advocacy groups have widely differing goals. That is why they are not united. Putting them all together would only cause problems. But, the doubt still persists. This doubt may not destroy these organizations, but it greatly slows their progress.

What we need is to find a common goal. I think the one goal that all of these groups has is 'cheap access to space'. Once that cheap access is developed each organization could simply buy a ticket to Low Earth Orbit and pursue their varied goals from there. And, once they all work together and produce a system for cheap access to space, the afformentioned doubts will be greatly overcome.

Here's what I suggest. First, we all form a separate company to develope the cheapest way to get to LEO. (I assume this would employ 100% reusable vehicles, but we'll let the engineers decide that.) Second, each group invests a portion of its membership dues to this cause. This would have to be done year after year until our goal is met. Third, once the transportation system is designed, each contributing organization (or anyone else) can use it for whatever it wants to do.

Doing this would overcome two of the biggest obstactles:
Earth's Gravity - and the high cost of escaping it, and
Doubt - and the lack of investment and support that it creates.

I agree with you 100%.  I am also working on a business plan.
We can do this!!!