5 ms·

Visiting Mars few times, then the public losing the interest is the most likely scenario. Mars Colonization in our lifetime is fantasy. Not necessarily from te

Visiting Mars few times, then the public losing the interest is the most likely scenario. Mars Colonization in our lifetime is fantasy. Not necessarily from technical but from purely economic perspective. You can't make near time colony self sufficient and maintaining it would require billions in subsidies year after year.

annerajb 8y ago
Sounds cheap. All of Earth's space countries could pay a billion or two a year and pay it easily. At least initially while it grows.
- Nokinside 8y ago
  Billions. It might cost 20 billion per year (the whole NASA budget) or several times of that. Economically speaking Mars would not achieve economies of scale needed for becoming self sustaining. Manufacturing every component for higher safety standards than commercial aircraft or nuclear submarine is expensive. Building whole society that works in safety critical environment 24/7, starting from daycare and ending with microprocessor and chemical plants is just fantasy in the near future. Maybe in 100 or 150 years we can start dreaming.
rory096 8y ago
>Visiting Mars few times, then the public losing the interest is the most likely scenario. That's why colonization must start on the first mission. Flags and footprints missions are self-defeating. >You can't make near time colony self sufficient and maintaining it would require billions in subsidies year after year. The US alone already spends $5 billion per year on ISS.
- Nokinside 8y ago
  >The US alone already spends $5 billion per year on ISS. ISS has crew of 6 located 400 km from the surface of the Earth. In the emergency they can leave the station in minutes (in two Soyuz capsules). Time between the decision to leave and landing in Kazakhstan is 3.5 hours or less.
  - rory096 8y ago
    And they never have. What's the relevance to cost here, anyway?
nickparker 8y ago
Mars settlement is going to turn out fantastically profitable. At this point it’s pretty clear that with low enough launch costs orbital industry will be a big thing. All sorts of high performance materials can only be made in microgravity: * Better optical fibers with ZBLAN (happening today) and better optics in general with zero-g glass forming * whole new alloys which can’t be made in normal g due to density separation. Think better nickel superalloys, and guess what the price per kg could be * much larger, purer, more perfect crystals of all sorts for semiconductors, drug development, etc * artificial tissues and organs grow better when not under their own weight Launch costs are dropping fast today, but will eventually probably plateau someplace north of $50/kg until we can move past chemical rockets, which IMO is fantasy in our lifetime. As long as launch costs stay that high, it’s strong incentive to develop mining and refining capacity on Mars. The gravity well is so much shallower than Earth that for any destination past LEO, you’re saving money launching from Mars. Martian materials won’t be used on Earth for centuries, if ever. But $50,000 / ton Martian steel + Martian launch costs will be cheaper than ~free Earth steel + Earth launch costs within our lifetimes, imo.
- Nokinside 8y ago
  Mars does not have a microgravity. Everything you say is argument for not going to Mars but develop industry in the Moon, close Earth asteroids or in the Earth orbit. Mars is in the bottom of big and expensive delta-v well just like Earth. If asteroid mining becomes profitable, Mars can never compete. It has no microgravity, no enough sunlight, corrosive soil and dust everywhere. It's just a lifeless desert in deep delta-v. Having small economic settlement inside near earth asteroid could be economically sound idea. Most of the work would be done by semi-automatic robots and people on Earth but maybe there is need for on-site crews as well.
  - nickparker 8y ago
    Mars has half the escape velocity and a much thinner atmosphere. Just from the ideal rocket eqn the same reusable rocket flying from Mars can lift more than 4x the mass it can on Earth, and the comparison is even better when you look at drag and engine efficiency differences. I don’t have the expertise to really compare asteroid mining to Mars, but I’m suspicious of the fixed infrastructure costs. Mining and refining takes a lot of mass. Replicating that mass for each object you want to mine or flying it from rock to rock both seem like significant costs. Perhaps we’ll find a big Goldilocks rock that’s near Earth, will stay near Earth for a long time without insanely expensive capture maneuvers, and contains all the materials we want, but I think Mars has a better shot. Mars also has much friendlier conditions for propellant manufacturing, which is an important factor in these cheap launches.

annerajb 8y ago

Sounds cheap. All of Earth's space countries could pay a billion or two a year and pay it easily. At least initially while it grows.

Nokinside 8y ago
Billions. It might cost 20 billion per year (the whole NASA budget) or several times of that. Economically speaking Mars would not achieve economies of scale needed for becoming self sustaining. Manufacturing every component for higher safety standards than commercial aircraft or nuclear submarine is expensive. Building whole society that works in safety critical environment 24/7, starting from daycare and ending with microprocessor and chemical plants is just fantasy in the near future. Maybe in 100 or 150 years we can start dreaming.

rory096 8y ago

>Visiting Mars few times, then the public losing the interest is the most likely scenario. That's why colonization must start on the first mission. Flags and footprints missions are self-defeating. >You can't make near time colony self sufficient and maintaining it would require billions in subsidies year after year. The US alone already spends $5 billion per year on ISS.

Nokinside 8y ago
>The US alone already spends $5 billion per year on ISS. ISS has crew of 6 located 400 km from the surface of the Earth. In the emergency they can leave the station in minutes (in two Soyuz capsules). Time between the decision to leave and landing in Kazakhstan is 3.5 hours or less.
- rory096 8y ago
  And they never have. What's the relevance to cost here, anyway?

nickparker 8y ago

Mars settlement is going to turn out fantastically profitable. At this point it’s pretty clear that with low enough launch costs orbital industry will be a big thing. All sorts of high performance materials can only be made in microgravity: * Better optical fibers with ZBLAN (happening today) and better optics in general with zero-g glass forming * whole new alloys which can’t be made in normal g due to density separation. Think better nickel superalloys, and guess what the price per kg could be * much larger, purer, more perfect crystals of all sorts for semiconductors, drug development, etc * artificial tissues and organs grow better when not under their own weight Launch costs are dropping fast today, but will eventually probably plateau someplace north of $50/kg until we can move past chemical rockets, which IMO is fantasy in our lifetime. As long as launch costs stay that high, it’s strong incentive to develop mining and refining capacity on Mars. The gravity well is so much shallower than Earth that for any destination past LEO, you’re saving money launching from Mars. Martian materials won’t be used on Earth for centuries, if ever. But $50,000 / ton Martian steel + Martian launch costs will be cheaper than ~free Earth steel + Earth launch costs within our lifetimes, imo.

Nokinside 8y ago
Mars does not have a microgravity. Everything you say is argument for not going to Mars but develop industry in the Moon, close Earth asteroids or in the Earth orbit. Mars is in the bottom of big and expensive delta-v well just like Earth. If asteroid mining becomes profitable, Mars can never compete. It has no microgravity, no enough sunlight, corrosive soil and dust everywhere. It's just a lifeless desert in deep delta-v. Having small economic settlement inside near earth asteroid could be economically sound idea. Most of the work would be done by semi-automatic robots and people on Earth but maybe there is need for on-site crews as well.
- nickparker 8y ago
  Mars has half the escape velocity and a much thinner atmosphere. Just from the ideal rocket eqn the same reusable rocket flying from Mars can lift more than 4x the mass it can on Earth, and the comparison is even better when you look at drag and engine efficiency differences. I don’t have the expertise to really compare asteroid mining to Mars, but I’m suspicious of the fixed infrastructure costs. Mining and refining takes a lot of mass. Replicating that mass for each object you want to mine or flying it from rock to rock both seem like significant costs. Perhaps we’ll find a big Goldilocks rock that’s near Earth, will stay near Earth for a long time without insanely expensive capture maneuvers, and contains all the materials we want, but I think Mars has a better shot. Mars also has much friendlier conditions for propellant manufacturing, which is an important factor in these cheap launches.