5 ms·
The financing of an offworld base is still very much unknown. Even with a high volume and relatively low cost launch vehicle, the actual offworld base will be
by londons_explore 3y ago
The financing of an offworld base is still very much unknown.
Even with a high volume and relatively low cost launch vehicle, the actual offworld base will be hugely expensive, and no commercial enterprise can realistically expect to make a return for their investors.
A government needs to step up with the rationale that it will eventually form a tax-producing colony - but a huge investment will need to be put in till it gets there.
- brandonagr2 3y agoAt first SpaceX will privately fund it using profits from Starlink
- OkGoDoIt 3y agoIs Starlink actually that profitable?
- londons_explore 3y agoIt was recently announced that it breaks even. I expect it will be profitable in the future as it scales up. But there is probably only about 2x more scaling at the current price point (launching new countries, selling to people who aren't yet aware of it).
- jdminhbg 3y agoBesides just selling more normal Starlink subs, they also have revenue opportunities from selling their LTE cell phone product to carriers, as well as dedicated networks like the in-progress "StarShield" for the US DoD.
- Ajedi32 3y ago> eventually form a tax-producing colony Money is just a medium for the exchange of goods or services. What would the colony export in order to generate the revenue required to produce said taxes?
- kosievdmerwe 3y agoThe only sensible thing that would produce Earth based revenues would be some kind of intellectual property, but I don't know what is both sustainable enough and valuable enough to fund a colony. EDIT: this is also made worse by the fact that the first few colonists should be farmers, mechanics and doctors (aka human mechanics), since all the intellectual work can be done on earth.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- londons_explore 3y agoI expect that when we have a colony on Mars, exports will be found. Either mineral deposits which are rare on earth, or manufacturing processes which are easier with lower gravity. A human being able to lift 3x as much without machines already opens up possibilities for greater productivity. Stuff that must happen in the cold is cheaper to do too... Think of Vegas - no economic output at all, tourist destination alone. Mars could do the same. It only takes one thing - there is no need for a mixed economy.
- Ajedi32 3y agoI'm skeptical of that. Mars may indeed have some small advantages over Earth in certain niches of mining or manufacturing, but it's hard to imagine how those advantages wouldn't be greatly outweighed by the added difficulty of doing... just about anything on an uninhabitable planet, and expense of shipping the final product back to earth.
- ben_w 3y agoMy skepticism comes from a different direction. Assume there's something that can be done at lowest cost on Mars — is it cheaper to send humans to do it (with all the necessary life support, radiation protection, and the inevitable black swans because we've never done anything like this before), or to figure out how to fully automate it and send robots? If it takes 10,000 people to make $thing, then even at Musk's target price of $100k/person, the cost to develop and ship the automation[0] only has to come in less than a billion dollars to win. [0] I guess the TCO would be more complex to determine, as the human side includes not just paying the humans (and presumably shipping good from Earth), but also figuring out how to do low-gravity and zero-gravity healthcare and surgery (on this scale there will be emergencies requiring surgery during transit), and planning for the colonists' desire to start families and retire.
- gizmo686 3y agoWe've had an in-orbit base for over 20 years without any claim of future tax revenue or commercial viability. On Earth, we have a long history of establishing research bases in places where there is no potential for a viable colony (e.g. Antarctica). All we need is the political will and we can fund a Mars base as a purely government funded research program.
- voxic11 3y agoSure a research base, but we probably wont see colonies on mars for the same reasons we don't see colonies in antarctica.
- CptFribble 3y agoA self-sufficient colony outside Earth is a worthy goal in and of itself: 1. The indomitable human spirit and drive to explore and expand 2. It's cool 3. More room for humans There are also reasons that don't apply to Antarctica: 1. Hedging our bets against planet-ending catastrophes (global warming, giant asteroid/comet strike, ultra-pandemic) 2. Another stepping stone to exploring further interesting/important space goals, like gathering resources from the asteroid belt/moons of jupiter/etc, discovering life on Europa, and so on
- kiba 3y agoPart of the reason we don't colonize Antarctica is that it isn't romanticized to the same degree as the colonization of Mars.
- wredue 3y agoThat was a time of reasonable faith in science and a political era where one could get large agendas done.
- 3seashells 3y agoWe could park religous fanatics and prisoners offworld? Or just drop self replecating machinery to create value. Which is the actual crux. Even for labor.. Remote or ai operated drones are cheaper.
- adhesive_wombat 3y agoOne way interstellar colonies could finance themselves, including no-faster-than-light financial systems is explored in Charles Stross' Saturn's Children books. Also it has space accountancy pirates.