3 ms·
That doesn't mean it's anywhere close to being economical. It's just one of the few options they have there, or it's perhaps a little cheaper/more practical tha
by mtgx 9y ago
That doesn't mean it's anywhere close to being economical. It's just one of the few options they have there, or it's perhaps a little cheaper/more practical than carrying everything from Earth. Perhaps capturing it from Mars instead of bringing it from Earth means the project can cost "only" $5 billion per trip rather than $20 billion.
But that says absolutely nothing about doing that on Earth vs all the other much cheaper alternatives.
- frafra 9y agoSure, but the discussion was about energy and carbon footprint, not economics; I just reported what Elon Musk said the last presentation about how to produce the fuel starting from carbon dioxide. Economic viability has to be proved, but I think they are more closer to it now than when they presented the BFR for the first time.