3 ms·

I want to hear about the economic viability of Mars colonization. I support colonization, but without some kind of economic interest it is going to be no more v

I want to hear about the economic viability of Mars colonization. I support colonization, but without some kind of economic interest it is going to be no more viable than our colonization of Antarctica-

XorNot 13y ago
The thing people forget about Antarctica is that it's not a wild frontier. It's dangerous, it's cold, but it's also governed by a lot of very important international treaties about what you can and can't do there - and it's a major part of the global ocean ecosystem. Basically: it's a terrible idea for us to go mining, drilling or terraforming in the Antarctic, and if we did, it would probably rapidly turn into a warzone. Space on the other hand - other planets, or asteroids or whatever - are not like this at all. They are literally owned by no one, and barring some event where you crash something into the Earth, nothing you do on them will ever effect the livability of our planet. You really can go there and do whatever you want, on whatever scale you want. Economically asteroid mining makes more sense, but if we acknowledge that scientific research is important then the old truism of our off-world rovers is still - afaik - full in force: impressive as they are, they take weeks to accomplish what a geologist with a shovel could do in an hour.
- voidlogic 13y ago
  All true and valid, but I still want to know the economic value of building a colony on Mars- is there anything worth mining there, and not only worth mining for Mars use but worth commerce with Earth over?
  - mburns 13y ago
    This is a well-studied topic, of course. The primary economic value is tourism/novelty. There are not large amounts of helium-3, like on the Moon, but there is ice. If you can get there (SpaceX in particular is working on that, for $500,000 a ticket), you could potentially live in a spacious, bomb shelter-like structure with relative comfort, and even venture outside (with a spacesuit) if you felt up for it. Mars could become a retirement locale for the sufficiently-successfully, not unlike of Florida but without the gators. It is not particularly likely, even with reusable rockets, that ore would be worth the price of shipping back to Earth in bulk. More efficient to use it for cheaper spacecraft (launch from Mars is less demanding on fuel) or Mars building structures directly, to house more residents.
johngalt 13y ago
Economics is really what will drive space travel. Consider that launch costs are going down steadily, and worldwide GDP is going up considerably. Knowledge of the solar system is going up at the same rate. Eventually a line will get crossed where transportation costs are lower than expected ROI. This is already the case for satellites. Eventually it will be the case for asteroid mining. Mining asteroids will further reduce the cost of getting raw materials into LEO, and yet more break even points will be crossed etc... I don't know if it will take 20 years or 200 years, but once there is serious money to be made you'll see humanity become a spacefaring species overnight.

XorNot 13y ago

The thing people forget about Antarctica is that it's not a wild frontier. It's dangerous, it's cold, but it's also governed by a lot of very important international treaties about what you can and can't do there - and it's a major part of the global ocean ecosystem. Basically: it's a terrible idea for us to go mining, drilling or terraforming in the Antarctic, and if we did, it would probably rapidly turn into a warzone. Space on the other hand - other planets, or asteroids or whatever - are not like this at all. They are literally owned by no one, and barring some event where you crash something into the Earth, nothing you do on them will ever effect the livability of our planet. You really can go there and do whatever you want, on whatever scale you want. Economically asteroid mining makes more sense, but if we acknowledge that scientific research is important then the old truism of our off-world rovers is still - afaik - full in force: impressive as they are, they take weeks to accomplish what a geologist with a shovel could do in an hour.

voidlogic 13y ago
All true and valid, but I still want to know the economic value of building a colony on Mars- is there anything worth mining there, and not only worth mining for Mars use but worth commerce with Earth over?
- mburns 13y ago
  This is a well-studied topic, of course. The primary economic value is tourism/novelty. There are not large amounts of helium-3, like on the Moon, but there is ice. If you can get there (SpaceX in particular is working on that, for $500,000 a ticket), you could potentially live in a spacious, bomb shelter-like structure with relative comfort, and even venture outside (with a spacesuit) if you felt up for it. Mars could become a retirement locale for the sufficiently-successfully, not unlike of Florida but without the gators. It is not particularly likely, even with reusable rockets, that ore would be worth the price of shipping back to Earth in bulk. More efficient to use it for cheaper spacecraft (launch from Mars is less demanding on fuel) or Mars building structures directly, to house more residents.

johngalt 13y ago

Economics is really what will drive space travel. Consider that launch costs are going down steadily, and worldwide GDP is going up considerably. Knowledge of the solar system is going up at the same rate. Eventually a line will get crossed where transportation costs are lower than expected ROI. This is already the case for satellites. Eventually it will be the case for asteroid mining. Mining asteroids will further reduce the cost of getting raw materials into LEO, and yet more break even points will be crossed etc... I don't know if it will take 20 years or 200 years, but once there is serious money to be made you'll see humanity become a spacefaring species overnight.