Another wacky idea

Bill White · 2004-04-01 21:30:45

In Case for Mars, Dr. Zubrin discusses the Mars Prize idea suggesting that the US federal government post a $20 billion prize fund for a trip to Mars. Apparently Newt Gingrich had some interest.

Why does it have to be the government?

Suppose, first, that Spirit and Opportunity find even stronger suggestions that actual life may exist on Mars.

Then, suppose a media tycoon (think a Rupert Murdoch-type) offers $20 - $25 billion CASH to whoever land humans on Mars first. With that much hard currency available, could the Russians and/or Russians plus ESA actually accomplish it?

It would not be charity. In exchange, this tycoon would demand EXCLUSIVE media broadcast rights. Launch, first steps, fossil collection, testing of bacteria to confirm life - - if FOX or CNN or BBC or al Jazeera wanted to show film they had to BUY it from this tycoon.

An American/NASA mission probably could not agree to such terms, but a Russian mission might.

I feel reasonably comfortable that this media tycoon (if he had the business instincts of a Rupert Murdoch) could parlay his $25 billion investment into a net profit, at the end of the day.

Okay, its a wacky idea. Tell me why it will not work.

Euler · 2004-04-02 00:19:53

The first big problem is convincing a media tycoon that media rights to the mars mission are worth $25 billion. The second problem is that it will cause a bare-bones mission to be launched once, after which the drive to go to mars will decrease because it has already been done.

Palomar · 2004-04-02 05:15:18

Then, suppose a media tycoon (think a Rupert Murdoch-type) offers $20 - $25 billion CASH to whoever land humans on Mars first. With that much hard currency available, could the Russians and/or Russians plus ESA actually accomplish it?
It would not be charity. In exchange, this tycoon would demand EXCLUSIVE media broadcast rights. Launch, first steps, fossil collection, testing of bacteria to confirm life - - if FOX or CNN or BBC or al Jazeera wanted to show film they had to BUY it from this tycoon.
Okay, its a wacky idea. Tell me why it will not work.

*Bill, what's up with your fascination for rich people? Unless you're one of them yourself. ???

Well, such a scenario would be considered unethical by me. Even though the tycoon funded the mission that doesn't, IMO, give him or her the right to withhold scientific information until the highest bidder is found.

The tycoon paid for the *trip.* That's it. The discovery of fossils and bacterial confirmation (or nonconfirmation) of life doesn't and shouldn't "belong" to any one person. The fossils and bacteria would belong to Mars itself, which belongs to no one.

I'd really hate to see science at the mercy of greed -- especially deliberately so.

Actually, I doubt the tycoon would get by with it anyway (court of public opinion, backlashes in the scientific community, etc.). Get enough "little people" riled up ...

I'm not necessarily opposed to private funding of a Mars mission (whether I'd oppose or approve would depend on the factors involved, motives, etc.). But withholding scientific information deliberately while waiting for the highest bidder is repugnant and unethical.

Hasn't science had enough of an uphill battle throughout the centuries, what with having to contend with continual supersitition, ignorance, and apathy? We don't need crass greed getting in the way now.

My opinion.

--Cindy

Byron · 2004-04-02 06:49:01

Bill...while I don't think a purely private venture would work, I do think a public-private partnership would be ideal for this sort of thing. The tycoon puts up the money (just not as much as you've suggested, perhaps in the range of 5-10 billion, which would still be pushing the edge of the envelope, so to speak), and NASA and/or other space agencies would partner up with the rockets, existing infrastructure, which includes the people working for those agencies, not to mention enough public funding to make sure the job is done right, as you don't want to be cutting corners on the first human mission to Mars ???

Sure, the tycoon would get exclusive media rights, etc...but the actual science performed on Mars would belong to the public, which would be the most ideal of circumstances in my opinion. If this was done right, with the proper oversight, this would have the potential to be a win-win situation all around.

B

Bill White · 2004-04-02 08:53:03

My question was not should this happen. Rather its could it happen. ??? Einstein didnt warn FDR about Hitlers atomic program because he wanted it to happen.

Next, why am I pre-occupied with rich people? Because even MarsDirect will cost $50 billion (or more) and many say that mission architecture is just too bare-bones as it is.

To go to Mars, we need money - - LOTS of money. Where do you find money? With rich people, right? Where else do you suggest looking?

I do agree with Euler - - the sale of media rights is a one shot deal, best used to leverage more than a single bare-bones mission.

But $25 billion with world wide marketing? Remember the events - - pre-launch, launch, Mars insertion burn, Mars capture, landing, hatch opens, first steps, the search for life, return to Earth. 3 years of programming with multiple Super-Bowl sized events.

You syndicate it of course.

If CNN buys rights, how can FOX not buy rights? CNN is showing the first human stepping onto Mars and FOX is showing Hannity and Combes? ABC is showing figure skating?

Every company will pay this tycoon for non-exclusive rights to re-broadcast the feed.

Also, media rights can expire after say three or six months and then ALL scientific data goes public domain, after the marketing value wears off.

= = =

Bottom line? This is what can happen if a public funded (taxpayers) mission does not happen.

If the methane discovery is true and life exists on Mars and the US government does NOT go there soon, some Rupert Murdoch type will do it first instead.

= = =

Byron - this IS public/private. Russia plus a media tycoon. Russia supplies the heavy lift, technology and access to nuclear material and media sales provide the money.

Bill White · 2004-04-02 08:58:40

What about science data garnered from astronaut telemetry?

Space medicine interests will greatly value 3 years of 24/7 data downloads of all medical telemetry - - blood pressure, heart rate, bone density studies, dietary records, weekly or monthly blood tests, stuuf like that.

Could that data be private domain in exchange for sufficient payment?

Palomar · 2004-04-02 09:29:47

My question was not should this happen. Rather its could it happen. ??? Einstein didnt warn FDR about Hitlers atomic program because he wanted it to happen.
Next, why am I pre-occupied with rich people? Because even MarsDirect will cost $50 billion (or more) and many say that mission architecture is just too bare-bones as it is.
To go to Mars, we need money - - LOTS of money. Where do you find money? With rich people, right? Where else do you suggest looking?
I do agree with Euler - - the sale of media rights is a one shot deal, best used to leverage more than a single bare-bones mission.
But $25 billion with world wide marketing? Remember the events - - pre-launch, launch, Mars insertion burn, Mars capture, landing, hatch opens, first steps, the search for life, return to Earth. 3 years of programming with multiple Super-Bowl sized events.
You syndicate it of course.
If CNN buys rights, how can FOX not buy rights? CNN is showing the first human stepping onto Mars and FOX is showing Hannity and Combes? ABC is showing figure skating?
Every company will pay this tycoon for non-exclusive rights to re-broadcast the feed.
Also, media rights can expire after say three or six months and then ALL scientific data goes public domain, after the marketing value wears off.
= = =
Bottom line? This is what can happen if a public funded (taxpayers) mission does not happen.
If the methane discovery is true and life exists on Mars and the US government does NOT go there soon, some Rupert Murdoch type will do it first instead.

*Bill, I understand where you're coming from. And I was just ribbing you a bit earlier this a.m. (in good spirit).

Yes, the money would have to come from the people who have it.

Not directed at you: I have major ethical qualms about scientific data and discovery being "the property of" one person, or a small group of people, who can also withhold it at whim until the dollar amount is right for release.

But I'd like to think said rich person or people would have enough humanitarian sentiment to share that knowledge instead, freely. (I know, I know...am I naive? But rather err on the side of that than cynicism). Generous wealthy people are always much more beloved than their tight-fisted, miserly counterparts.

This is why NASA needs to get off its lazy rump. Science must remain in the public arena.

I am *-glad-* you started this thread, Bill. I'm beginning to rethink very seriously "private" aspects of exploration and etc.

--Cindy

SBird · 2004-04-02 10:14:54

I think that one problem is that there aren't any people on Earth rich enough to support a Mars Direct on their own. Most of the ultra-billionaires out there have most of their worth tied up in stocks which they cannot liquidate. The only exceptions that I can think of are people like the sultan of Brunei. (Anyone want to head up the Brunei space program? )

Someone like Rupert would need to draw off of company resources and I think that this is the sort of high risk maneuver that is going to be hard to get past a board of directors. You really need to have more than one rich person on board and the ultra-rich generally didn't get to be that way by playing well with others...

Bill White · 2004-04-02 10:59:47

I think that one problem is that there aren't any people on Earth rich enough to support a Mars Direct on their own. Most of the ultra-billionaires out there have most of their worth tied up in stocks which they cannot liquidate. The only exceptions that I can think of are people like the sultan of Brunei. (Anyone want to head up the Brunei space program? )
Someone like Rupert would need to draw off of company resources and I think that this is the sort of high risk maneuver that is going to be hard to get past a board of directors. You really need to have more than one rich person on board and the ultra-rich generally didn't get to be that way by playing well with others...

The stage play version of Other People's Money was much better than the movie.

This media group doesn't need to write a check for the full $25 billion until after cash from the syndiaction starts rolling in.
Russia signs a contract in 2008 for exclusive media rights to a 2016 mission. The holder of that contract then immediately starts re-selling those rights into local national markets to raise the cash needed to pay the Russian government.

Up front capital? Very little, really. Ever watch those TV shows about how to buy real estate with NO money down? Same idea, just a few orders of magnitude bigger.

Besides, its not one guy in the end.

Suppose Russia contracts for $25 billion and while it plays out, the buyer of these rights starts to realize that he can raise $4 billion by selling into the Japanese language market (make it $6 billion and a Japanese astronaut gets to go) $9 billion from the European market, $14 billion from North America, $3 billion each in India and China, $2 billion from South America and so on. . .

What might the EU kick in to demoninate the contract in Euros rather than in dollars? Whose flags get to go on the spacecraft? Might the ESA kick in $5-$10 billion to plant an EU flag next to the Russian flag?

Anyway - once the profit models start shaping up, the holder starts selling off percentages of his business to raise the cash needed to pay the Russian space contractors.

= = =

I have been reading about how to finance sports stadiums. Do it the same way for space, just a few orders of magnitude bigger. Mark Cuban doesn't spend his own money (mayeb a little) rather he uses his contacts to syndicate the deal across enough people to raise the money.

Remember, between 2008 and 2016, in this hypothetical, skilled marketing types are designing ad campaigns to boost public interest in watching.

In 1978 the NBA Finals were broadcast on friggin tape delay! By 1998, the NBA was a multi-billion dollar media juggernaut.

Accident? Nah. Brad Falk, David Stern and Phil Knight engineered public opinion to create NBA popularity. David Halberstam, a serious journalist, if one ever lived, explored this quite well in his book - Playing for Keeps.

= = =

Do not measure public opinion, shape public opinion. Engineer public opinion.

If you need to calculate the proper angle of atmospheric entry to areobrake safely, call an aerospace engineer.

If you need to figure out how to turn a $25 billion media contract into $40 billion in revenue, ask an expert, like Rupert Murdoch.

Bill White · 2004-04-02 11:22:10

I think that one problem is that there aren't any people on Earth rich enough to support a Mars Direct on their own. Most of the ultra-billionaires out there have most of their worth tied up in stocks which they cannot liquidate. The only exceptions that I can think of are people like the sultan of Brunei. (Anyone want to head up the Brunei space program? )
Someone like Rupert would need to draw off of company resources and I think that this is the sort of high risk maneuver that is going to be hard to get past a board of directors. You really need to have more than one rich person on board and the ultra-rich generally didn't get to be that way by playing well with others...

SBird is 100% correct - - NO established media company, CNN, FOX, ABC/Disney etc.. . would ever risk something like this.

It needs to be a wannabe start up, with a wheeler-dealer mentality, and a desire to end the day with the creation of a brand new media network that never existed before.

RobS · 2004-04-02 12:27:48

One problem with the idea that one or more rich people should be smart enough to make a profit off of a trip to Mars is that such people are also smart enough to make a helluva lot more profit doing something else with their money! People have to have an emotional reason to commit the money because reason isn't enough. They have to want to go down in history in a cerain way, to establish a religious or ideological utopia there, or they just have to be a bit crazy.

-- RobS

Bill White · 2004-04-02 12:59:12

One problem with the idea that one or more rich people should be smart enough to make a profit off of a trip to Mars is that such people are also smart enough to make a helluva lot more profit doing something else with their money! People have to have an emotional reason to commit the money because reason isn't enough. They have to want to go down in history in a cerain way, to establish a religious or ideological utopia there, or they just have to be a bit crazy.
-- RobS

Exactly! So we need people with non-financial reasons to get to Mars who understand how to manipulate the market system to raise the needed money.

Any suggestions? :;):

Rxke · 2004-04-02 13:27:13

Heh.

That's in essence the sub-plot of 'Return to Mars,' the sequel to 'Mars' by.... errrr... (sigh) (Google) Ben Bova (Blush)

Where an extremely rich tycoon all but himself funds a follow-up mission to Mars, years after the first one... with all the ethical issues involved etc...

And indeed, he lets big networks bid on footage etc... and insist on the scientists to be more entertaining... (hah!)
And has a say in the composition of the crew(!)
In the end it... (spoiler removed) let's say they come up with a very good idea to make Mars missions 'pay' in an ethical way.

Not the best writing, because of some gaping inconsistencies in the overall plot, but worth reading nontheless, i recommend it.

Bill White · 2004-04-02 13:36:20

The foundation of my thinking is that we need three things to go to Mars:

<1> Cooperation from a national government that has access to heavy lift and space-rated nuclear reactors;

<2> Billions and billions of dollars (or euros);

<3> Reasons sufficient to persuade those who control <1> and <2> to fund the mission. (The why question)

Obstacle #2 can be overcome or at least partially offset, IMHO, by the sale of media rights. If you can cover #2, Russia will probably sell you #1, provided the program is arranged in a way to support the Russian national interest such as planting a Russian flag on Mars first.

Palomar · 2004-04-02 13:44:26

*I don't intend to take this off-topic, but I would like to make another comment (as an "adjunct" of sorts to my 2 previous posts): Another reason I'm becoming very reluctant about private enterprise in conjunction with space exploration relates to quality control issues, responsibility, etc. Who would private organizations answer to regarding avoidance of contamination issues and the like? No one, I presume.

NASA, ESA, etc., have to answer to higher authority; they must "give account." Sure, that doesn't eliminate goofs and blunders, but there is a standard to be maintained or heads will figuratively roll.

The more I think about it, the less favorably inclined I become to private enterprise in this regard. Maybe I'm wrong. Of course, I'll try to keep it all in consideration. :-\

No raining on the Million Year Picnic. Thanks.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2004-04-02 15:51:31

One problem with the idea that one or more rich people should be smart enough to make a profit off of a trip to Mars is that such people are also smart enough to make a helluva lot more profit doing something else with their money! People have to have an emotional reason to commit the money because reason isn't enough. They have to want to go down in history in a cerain way, to establish a religious or ideological utopia there, or they just have to be a bit crazy.

What we need, dear friends, are super-villains! Muahahaha!

Bill White · 2004-04-04 13:56:32

What about [http://www2.interfax.ru/eng/news/politi … story.html]EU money plus Russian know how - that might work also.

clark · 2004-04-05 07:14:38

Then, suppose a media tycoon (think a Rupert Murdoch-type) offers $20 - $25 billion CASH to whoever land humans on Mars first. With that much hard currency available, could the Russians and/or Russians plus ESA actually accomplish it?
It would not be charity. In exchange, this tycoon would demand EXCLUSIVE media broadcast rights. Launch, first steps, fossil collection, testing of bacteria to confirm life - - if FOX or CNN or BBC or al Jazeera wanted to show film they had to BUY it from this tycoon.

Short answer, no.

The funds would be made available at the completion of the 'contest' (as it were), which means a Manned Mission to Mars is still an upfront gamble by any competing agency. Russia, even with the promise of payment at the end, would be hard strapped to find the funds to do Mars.

The tycoon would of course offer nothing until someone 'won'.

I for one think a tycoon might hit upon this idea for nothing more than PR. It's not like he has to pay up right away, and if by chance it seems somebody was going to actually do it, he can simply invest his money for the 10-15 years prior to any mission to make even more money.

This scenerio offers no risk for the Tycoon, and places it all upon the competitors, I don't think it primes the pump enough to get things rolling.

Bill White · 2004-04-05 08:15:39

Then, suppose a media tycoon (think a Rupert Murdoch-type) offers $20 - $25 billion CASH to whoever land humans on Mars first. With that much hard currency available, could the Russians and/or Russians plus ESA actually accomplish it?
It would not be charity. In exchange, this tycoon would demand EXCLUSIVE media broadcast rights. Launch, first steps, fossil collection, testing of bacteria to confirm life - - if FOX or CNN or BBC or al Jazeera wanted to show film they had to BUY it from this tycoon.
Short answer, no.
The funds would be made available at the completion of the 'contest' (as it were), which means a Manned Mission to Mars is still an upfront gamble by any competing agency. Russia, even with the promise of payment at the end, would be hard strapped to find the funds to do Mars.
The tycoon would of course offer nothing until someone 'won'.
I for one think a tycoon might hit upon this idea for nothing more than PR. It's not like he has to pay up right away, and if by chance it seems somebody was going to actually do it, he can simply invest his money for the 10-15 years prior to any mission to make even more money.
This scenerio offers no risk for the Tycoon, and places it all upon the competitors, I don't think it primes the pump enough to get things rolling.

clark, you have obviously not watched the TV shows about how to buy real estate with no money down. :;):

The trick is to get a snowball rolling. The deal-maker gets a promise from Russia for excusive media rights and then negotiates with the smaller players to some upfront money that gets passed on to the space contractors.

Having the US taxpayer (or Russian government) as the ultimate underwriter sure would be nice, and that would not be different than the loan guarantees we currently extend through the Export/Import Bank.

Since the deal on paper does not require taxpayer money and since taxpayer loan guarantees are often not accounted for the same way as direct expenditures - - only the most astute observers (such as yourself) will ever see who covers the float.

clark · 2004-04-05 08:27:04

The trick is to get a snowball rolling. The deal-maker gets a promise from Russia for excusive media rights and then negotiates with the smaller players to some upfront money that gets passed on to the space contractors.

Smaller players, who are they?

It seems that if a media tycoon could get this deal done and going, with a promise to pay later, someone brighter might hit upon the idea to do this anyway, and charge more for it later.

"F--k you very much Mr Tycoon, but we're going to Mars, and you can bid on the media rights, along with everyone else."

"We laugh at your 25 billion!"

Plus, isn't even this a losing proposition? Even Zubrin is quoting 50 billion as the cost for Mars Direct- and there's no payout without success...

Bill White · 2004-04-05 08:35:41

The trick is to get a snowball rolling. The deal-maker gets a promise from Russia for excusive media rights and then negotiates with the smaller players to some upfront money that gets passed on to the space contractors.
Smaller players, who are they?
It seems that if a media tycoon could get this deal done and going, with a promise to pay later, someone brighter might hit upon the idea to do this anyway, and charge more for it later.
"F--k you very much Mr Tycoon, but we're going to Mars, and you can bid on the media rights, along with everyone else."
"We laugh at your 25 billion!"
Plus, isn't even this a losing proposition? Even Zubrin is quoting 50 billion as the cost for Mars Direct- and there's no payout without success...

$50 billion using American rockets.

Russia can do it cheaper. Use ISS-Zarya and a TransHab and 2 Soyuz descent capsules for the Earth to Mars leg and pre-position a newly designed ERV following MarsDirect architecture.

Use the L1 gateway trajectory for the ERV to L1 via solar ion then moon/Earth slingshot and all Earth inclinations are equal.

3 or 4 Protons ($400 million aggregate?) can lift a modular assembled ERV.

= = =

The smaller players? Various national media companies. Once I have exclusive global rights I start talking up FOX and CNN and ABC/Disney - - whoever ponies up first gets the best deal and lowest price on US rights. Repeat globally

Don't forget I am a content syndicator - - I never own a single antenna or mile of fiber-optic or any broadcast licenses.

I agree you need good poker player skills and some luck - - lots of luck - - but remember the thread title, "a wacky idea"

clark · 2004-04-05 08:49:56

$50 billion using American rockets.
Russia can do it cheaper. Use ISS-Zarya and a TransHab and 2 Soyuz descent capsules for the Earth to Mars leg and pre-position a newly designed ERV following MarsDirect architecture.

Okay, for the sake of argument, Russia can do it cheaper. :laugh:

Russia also dosen't have the upfront funds to pull something like this off. They don't have the capital, nor do they have any real option of floating some kind of interntaional bond or loan to pull this off. But then, let's assume they did.

Some white knight of a person or persons comes in, and figures out a way to generate the funds immediately to start the Manned Mission to Mars (basically, an underwriter). What's his cut? Is this a plan (the wacky idea) designed to defray the cost of a Mars mission, or make a buck on it?

Perhaps it is different things for different people. The tycoon is motivated by making a buck, right? The competing agency for the manned mission is motivated by some altruistic desire to go explore. Columbus and his Queen? Yet the art of competing interests is to find the commonality between them, not play them off one another, which as it stands, this 'wacky idea' seems to do.

Now, say you sell the rights to broadcast Mission to Mars- does that mean you have sold the rights to the people going on the Mission to Mars? Do the astronauts (capital-nauts?) retain rights to their images? Are they forced to endorse things?

And again, what you describe with the smaller players is producing the 25 billion to pay up. How do you prime the pump? How do you get them to do the mission with nothing more than a promise of defraying the cost, later, IF successful?

Bill White · 2004-04-05 09:02:52

$50 billion using American rockets.
Russia can do it cheaper. Use ISS-Zarya and a TransHab and 2 Soyuz descent capsules for the Earth to Mars leg and pre-position a newly designed ERV following MarsDirect architecture.
Okay, for the sake of argument, Russia can do it cheaper. :laugh:
Russia also dosen't have the upfront funds to pull something like this off. They don't have the capital, nor do they have any real option of floating some kind of interntaional bond or loan to pull this off. But then, let's assume they did.
Some white knight of a person or persons comes in, and figures out a way to generate the funds immediately to start the Manned Mission to Mars (basically, an underwriter). What's his cut? Is this a plan (the wacky idea) designed to defray the cost of a Mars mission, or make a buck on it?
Perhaps it is different things for different people. The tycoon is motivated by making a buck, right? The competing agency for the manned mission is motivated by some altruistic desire to go explore. Columbus and his Queen? Yet the art of competing interests is to find the commonality between them, not play them off one another, which as it stands, this 'wacky idea' seems to do.
Now, say you sell the rights to broadcast Mission to Mars- does that mean you have sold the rights to the people going on the Mission to Mars? Do the astronauts (capital-nauts?) retain rights to their images? Are they forced to endorse things?
And again, what you describe with the smaller players is producing the 25 billion to pay up. How do you prime the pump? How do you get them to do the mission with nothing more than a promise of defraying the cost, later, IF successful?

I agree with all. Issues, issues, issues.

For a writer its a "target rich" environment.

And yes, its like a juggler with a dozen balls trying to harmonize a wide assortment of divergent private goals and agendas and finding a way for all of these goals to coalesce on a single concrete goal - - humans to Mars.

= = =

Like RobS said earlier, a tycoon who wants to make a buck but maybe was a SETI fanatic in college. Someone who has succeeded wildly at making money but has become bored with making money as the sole measure of life.

= = =

And again, what you describe with the smaller players is producing the 25 billion to pay up. How do you prime the pump? How do you get them to do the mission with nothing more than a promise of defraying the cost, later, IF successful?

By manipulation of fear and greed. If ABC Disney buys the American rights first, they get the best deal and special access later buyers won't get. Private interviews with astronauts, stuff like that.

Fear that on "first steps" day, your network is one of a few networks shut out of the video feed because you refused to play ball soon enough.

= = =

To calculate orbital trajectories, hire a rocket scientist. To build a global media frenzy for watching humans go to Mars, hire folks who are expert at that.

If the media network has a huge profit at stake, they benefit from growing public support for space exploration. Its not a conspiracy, its aligning private interests towards a shared goal.

For years leading up to the mission, these same networks will be using all the tricks of Madison Avenue to grow interest in space exploration. Don't measure public opinion, shape public opinion.

clark · 2004-04-05 09:13:24

A plan predicated on the eccentricities of one individual...

Why not just have them do it themselves?

If Russia can do it cheaper, then why can't someone simply buy from them, and do it themselves. If we're already developing a sci-fantasy, then we can accept a maverik who sets up shop to do this himself. Since what you are asking for is a fanatic with enough sense to keep it in check, but now is no longer restrained, why not go full bore?

Bill White · 2004-04-05 09:23:41

A plan predicated on the eccentricities of one individual...
Why not just have them do it themselves?
If Russia can do it cheaper, then why can't someone simply buy from them, and do it themselves. If we're already developing a sci-fantasy, then we can accept a maverik who sets up shop to do this himself. Since what you are asking for is a fanatic with enough sense to keep it in check, but now is no longer restrained, why not go full bore?

No one person can afford it and its the sustainability question. If that one person dies, its over. Thus, find a way to use other peoples money and give those other people profit incentive to see the project through.

Actually, a group could "create" an artificial media tycoon (like from that move Simone, Sim-one) to simulate this same process. Then a committee or board of directors can sell national rights into the vaious national markets to get the snowball rolling.

Where does the money come from?

Ultimately from a billion or two billion viewers and the aggregated advertising revenue from three to five years of television programming. That revenue does not exist without the Mars program and the Mars program does not exist without the revenue.

Our tycoon, doesn't invest much money perhaps no more than 1% or 2% of the total cost. He trades on his contacts and ability to float the deal and then generates ratings (which equals dollars) from enthusiasm generated by promoting the project.

= = =

Finance and business is not always rational, which is why engineers are lousy at doing it.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-04-01 21:30:45

Re: Another wacky idea

#2 2004-04-02 00:19:53

Re: Another wacky idea

#3 2004-04-02 05:15:18

Re: Another wacky idea

#4 2004-04-02 06:49:01

Re: Another wacky idea

#5 2004-04-02 08:53:03

Re: Another wacky idea

#6 2004-04-02 08:58:40

Re: Another wacky idea

#7 2004-04-02 09:29:47

Re: Another wacky idea

#8 2004-04-02 10:14:54

Re: Another wacky idea

#9 2004-04-02 10:59:47

Re: Another wacky idea

#10 2004-04-02 11:22:10

Re: Another wacky idea

#11 2004-04-02 12:27:48

Re: Another wacky idea

#12 2004-04-02 12:59:12

Re: Another wacky idea

#13 2004-04-02 13:27:13

Re: Another wacky idea

#14 2004-04-02 13:36:20

Re: Another wacky idea

#15 2004-04-02 13:44:26

Re: Another wacky idea

#16 2004-04-02 15:51:31

Re: Another wacky idea

#17 2004-04-04 13:56:32

Re: Another wacky idea

#18 2004-04-05 07:14:38

Re: Another wacky idea

#19 2004-04-05 08:15:39

Re: Another wacky idea

#20 2004-04-05 08:27:04

Re: Another wacky idea

#21 2004-04-05 08:35:41

Re: Another wacky idea

#22 2004-04-05 08:49:56

Re: Another wacky idea

#23 2004-04-05 09:02:52

Re: Another wacky idea

#24 2004-04-05 09:13:24

Re: Another wacky idea

#25 2004-04-05 09:23:41

Re: Another wacky idea

Board footer