tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-987241699123718287.post4989779843063162112..comments2023-10-23T12:57:43.485-07:00Comments on Planet Plots: Have you become jaded?ken_anthonyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07612961297952294600noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-987241699123718287.post-65498510195883894222014-04-22T03:58:25.623-07:002014-04-22T03:58:25.623-07:00Tourism might be viable in the early days of a col...Tourism might be viable in the early days of a colony. <br /><br />For example, what about tourism to ISS? ISS has a lot of barriers; it's government-owned and run (by two governments) and NASA hates the idea of tourists on ISS. <br /><br />But there have already been seven paying space tourists on ISS, paying between 20 and 40 million per trip for an average stay of about 12 days, and one of them went twice. <br /><br />So, in the case of Mars, my hunch is there are at least a few willing to pay, say, a billion, to be the first tourist on Mars. <br /><br />It wouldn't be that hard to do. Yes, they and their supplies would basically replace one colonist for the trip to Mars, but with that kind of funding, it'd be more than worth it. And for the return trip, they'd be on a ship coming back mostly empty anyway. <br /><br />Okay, granted, if the Mars One approach is the plan the colony uses (no ability to depart Mars) then, no, tourism won't be viable. <br /><br />I think the only disagreement regarding Mars that you and I have is that issue; no ascent-capability for a Mars colony.<br />I do understand the reasoning for it, such as cost, but... I think it's unwise on a fiscal level. A Mars ascent-capable vehicle need not cost much to develop, nowhere near as much as is feared. And, it's a capability worth having from a fiscal perspective; tourism for one, material export for another. Ti name just one very early example; have you any idea how much research institutes would be willing to pay for Martian samples whose collection they could oversee and direct? Doing that requires an ascent capability. <br /><br />I know we'll probably end up agreeing to disagree on this, but let me ask this; if a Mars ascent capability (with return to Earth) could be attained for, say, 50 million, would you think it worthwhile? Just two ISS-level paying tourist would pay for it, and it'd remove the biggest public-perception problem the Mars One concept has - the one-way mission. It'd also be an intrinsic route to early revenue sources (Mars samples, tourists,ISRU products such as water, and methane shipped to earth orbit for a lot less than sending them up from Earth, etc.) Those would be revenue streams that would come on line within a year of first landing, and in any fiscally-based venture, early revenue is important. <br /><br />If you're willing to think about it, I could do a post outlining exactly how to attain a Mars an the cheap (including a design that I can prove will work) and how it could pay for itself via revenue creation. <br /><br />CJ :) <br /><br />C Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09526212511734492238noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-987241699123718287.post-55891103420927321362014-04-20T10:21:34.551-07:002014-04-20T10:21:34.551-07:00Yes, bonds have no mass making them a perfect mars...Yes, bonds have no mass making them a perfect mars export.<br /><br />I don't see tourism as viable for now.<br /><br />It's not just four times less fuel; it's ten times or more cheaper launch vehicles. Those parts that can't be made ISRU become valuable trade commodities for new colonists to bring with them.<br /><br />I think people will be amazed at the level of trade possible in twenty years.<br /><br />I'd invest in a locally manufactured mars launch vehicle company once established on mars. But most companies starting on mars will probably be branches of already existing companies on earth which actually represents a danger. Mars is going to need big businesses that are not so much involved on earth but able to compete.ken_anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07612961297952294600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-987241699123718287.post-31327269700954223492014-04-20T00:18:08.500-07:002014-04-20T00:18:08.500-07:00Let me start out by saying that I like your plan. ...Let me start out by saying that I like your plan. <br /><br />Would it be a high-risk class of investment? Yep, much like venture capital. There is risk... but guess what? In investment, it's often said "risk is your friend". <br /><br />I recall reading about one of the tech startups that, although running at a loss for year after year, kept attracting investment. It had a name that had nothing to do with its business, and I thought it was nuts to be interested in a money loser like that... and the company blundered on, trying to sell books. Last I heard, it was still around; it's called Amazon, and they've branched out a bit. Oh, and it's making a profit these days, so I hear. <br /><br />What will be a driver for Mars(one of them) IMHO is the exact same motive for people who often play in the venture capital markets; profit potential. This applies to many of the exploration and colony expeditions in history, too. <br /><br />Mars. In many ways, it's much akin to Alaska a couple of centuries ago. Long term, it has potentials that we can no more envision than Sec. State Seward (Alaska was known as Seward's Folley when he arranged for the USA to purchase it) was able to envision Alaska's current economic underpinnings. <br /><br />However, with Mars, we do know of some things that could yield profit. Tourism, of course, is an obvious one. Less obvious, though probably more profitable, is specialty manufacturing. For example, there is already a very large (many billions per year) demand for geosynchronous satellites, a market that will only grow. And here's the little know part; the true measure of space isn't distance, but delta/v, and using that measure (the only one that counts, especially costwise) the surface of Mars is one heck of a lot closer to Earth's GEO than the surface of Earth is. (Earth's surface to GEO is about 13.8 kps, all of which has to be propulsive. Mars surface to earth GEO is about (it varies a bit due to orbital timing) 7.7KPS, and you can get the last 1.3kps of that via aerocapture . So, the propulsive needs from Mars to Geo are about half of that from earth's surface, and that doesn't cut the propellent needed by half, it reduces it by a factor of four. That also makes Mars a far more attractive departure point for refueling missions to Geo. <br /><br />The moon (at 4kps to Geo) would be better than MArs for this, except that the moon, so far as we know, is far poorer than Mars in heavy elements (which are needed in comsats). So, building comsats on Mars would be a very, very viable early industry, and due to the delta/v needs and ease of launch (far shallower grav well- SSTO is very easy on Mars) it becomes a high-profit-potential market. It's true that a few of the components (I'm thinking the CPU chips) would require an advanced tech base that wouldn't be available, but the size and mass of each chip is so low that you could ship several year's worth as just a couple of pounds. <br /><br />The Delta/v savings apply to anything needed in Earth Orbit. Space station modules, for example. <br /> <br />Then there's the great known unknown; what we'll discover along the way; knowledge may be power, but it's also money, and many of the discoveries made on Mars will be profitable on Earth. <br /> <br />One potential obstacle to getting investors for Mars would be the timescale of return on investment; we're talking decades. Most investors aren't going to be interested in that long a timeframe, any more than they'd be interested in bankrolling an oilfield that's a decade and a half from pumping its first drop. But... they do the latter all the time, and without being locked in for the full term; they're called bonds. Why not apply the same to Mars? :)C Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09526212511734492238noreply@blogger.com