Mars Colony financing

[Aero]

You might be interested in this thread over an NASA spaceflight forum.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index. ... ic=27041.0

It discusses the unexpected measurement from the LCROSS mission of high concentrations of gold in the plume blasted out of the crater. They measured on the order of 1.6% corresponding to 160kg of gold.
You might also be interested in the reported results.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6003/472.abstract

You can register for free and read the full paper if you like.

I'm suggesting gold as a reason to go to the moon, and lunar gold as a way to finance Mars.

Gold nor platinum nor diamonds would be a profitable lunar export, even if we were to find very high grade ore.

Exporting from Mars is much worse. 5 km/s gravity well, launch windows each 2.14 years, 8.5 month trip times.

16 km/s (or more) delta V budgets plus Tsiolkovsky's rocket equation preclude profitable extraterrestrial mining ventures.

I see that you didn't read and understand the full NASA spaceflight forum thread. The gist of the thread includes advances expected and efficiencies obtained from SpaceX, VASIMR and lunar derived fuel which could result in sweeping changes in space transportation costs. Also, remember, it is a lot less expensive in terms of delta V to return material from the moon than it is to send equipment there. Yes, there is a lot of development needed, but the sweeping statement that extraterrestrial mining ventures are precluded is really not justifiable.

[williatw]

I see that you didn't read and understand the full NASA spaceflight forum thread. The gist of the thread includes advances expected and efficiencies obtained from SpaceX, VASIMR and lunar derived fuel which could result in sweeping changes in space transportation costs. Also, remember, it is a lot less expensive in terms of delta V to return material from the moon than it is to send equipment there. Yes, there is a lot of development needed, but the sweeping statement that extraterrestrial mining ventures are precluded is really not justifiable.

To say nothing of lunar mass drivers and possibly a space elevator on Mars at some point. The figure you gave for times and launch windows to Mars are for Hohman transfer orbits, minimum energy ways of getting to the planets. About as good as you can do with chemical rockets. No reason musk couldn't launch an upper stage which is a NERVA like nuclear thermal rocket or something like the TRITON which I believe was nuclear thermal and electric. Also somewhere on this site are expected possible delta V specific impulses from Polywell rockets. If I recall well into the thousands of seconds of specific impulse.

[HopDavid]

I see that you didn't read and understand the full NASA spaceflight forum thread. The gist of the thread includes advances expected and efficiencies obtained from SpaceX, VASIMR and lunar derived fuel which could result in sweeping changes in space transportation costs.

Warren's original post does mention propellant in lunar cold traps. In the twelfth and final paragraph.

In the early thread one of the posters, Hop David, talks about delta V. That would be me. You mention propellant and delta V in post #69.

But the most of the thread is very much on gold. A casual reader could easily miss these needles in a haystack.

Also, remember, it is a lot less expensive in terms of delta V to return material from the moon than it is to send equipment there. Yes, there is a lot of development needed, but the sweeping statement that extraterrestrial mining ventures are precluded is really not justifiable.

I see that you did not read or understand my "sweeping" statement.

Here it is again:

16 km/s (or more) delta V budgets plus Tsiolkovsky's rocket equation preclude profitable extraterrestrial mining ventures.

I bolded the 16 km/s (or more) delta V budgets part since you missed it the first time.

Given lunar propellant in LEO and EML1, that 16 km/s could be broken into several legs.



With sources of propellant at various locations on the slopes of earth's gravity well, travel can accomplished in hops of ~4 km/s. The cost of exporting lunar resources could fall dramatically with these smaller delta V budgets.

But lunar propellant is a prerequisite. The most valuable lunar resource wouldn't be gold, platinum or helium 3. It annoys me these remain the focus of discussions on lunar resources.

The most valuable lunar resource is water.

[HopDavid]

To say nothing of lunar mass drivers

I believe lunar mass drivers will come to pass. But not in the near term.

and possibly a space elevator on Mars at some point.

While I regard lunar mass drivers as plausible, a Mars elevator isn't. That would be a hugely ambitious project.

The figure you gave for times and launch windows to Mars are for Hohman transfer orbits, minimum energy ways of getting to the planets. About as good as you can do with chemical rockets.

Given propellant in EML1 and LEO, you could do much better with chemical rockets.



You can see Mars is only 1.2 km/s from EML1.

Lunar propellant is only 2.5 km/s from EMl1. As is lunar water for radiation shielding, lunar water to drink, lunar nitrogen and oxygen to breathe.

A fully fueled and stocked chemical rocket leaving from EML1 could reach Mars quite handily.

[GIThruster]

I see that you didn't read and understand the full NASA spaceflight forum thread. The gist of the thread includes advances expected and efficiencies obtained from SpaceX, VASIMR and lunar derived fuel which could result in sweeping changes in space transportation costs. Also, remember, it is a lot less expensive in terms of delta V to return material from the moon than it is to send equipment there. Yes, there is a lot of development needed, but the sweeping statement that extraterrestrial mining ventures are precluded is really not justifiable.

To say nothing of lunar mass drivers and possibly a space elevator on Mars at some point. The figure you gave for times and launch windows to Mars are for Hohman transfer orbits, minimum energy ways of getting to the planets. About as good as you can do with chemical rockets. No reason musk couldn't launch an upper stage which is a NERVA like nuclear thermal rocket or something like the TRITON which I believe was nuclear thermal and electric. Also somewhere on this site are expected possible delta V specific impulses from Polywell rockets. If I recall well into the thousands of seconds of specific impulse.

I think the most popular notion for launching large mass from the Moon is not a mass driver but rather a sling. http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index. ... ic=27061.0 I'm a huge fan of TRITON, you can find it here: http://www.pwrengineering.com/dataresou ... 4-3863.pdf and not much a fan of VASIMR, been that way for years, you can see why here: http://spacenews.com/commentaries/11071 ... -hoax.html.

But just being honest, a Mars Colony is a multi-trillion dollar investment that no one will make until the technology drives costs down many orders magnitude. I made this argument and explanation over at NSF several times, which is why the rocket engineers there don't much like me, but I'll make the point again.

People often visualize multi-trillion dollar investments in space and act as if they can show some incremental efficiency breakthrough, that somehow that sum won't be bothersome. That's nonsense. Until there is a technological breakthrough, that allows private investors to have an ROI within 5 years of large investments in space, space cannot be made profitable.

The only exceptions to this, are in cultures like Japan, where longer term investment is the standard. In most of the world, business people have to see a huge ROI in 5 years, because they plan to retire early and want that money in their pockets. It is the attitude with which business people approach their handling of other people's money, that makes long term investment in space, impractical.

There are other issues, much smaller that illustrate the point. TRITON would indeed be a vast breakthrough. All by itself, it would enable large interplanetary spacecraft that could LAND on places like Titan and return. Something a huge step past a Nautilus-X with TRITON motors would allow humans to explore our planetary system. We could afford build a small fleet of such spacecraft if we intended to. Trouble is, we don't intend to. TRITON would cost at least three billion dollars to create, and even then we'd have no assurance it would have the long maintenance cycle necessary to enable the kinds of travel we want. Even though people never speak of such things, they still recognize we're not going to see a multi-billion dollar investment in something as simple as a single thruster design.

See, it's not a problem for NASA to spend billions of dollars on a capsule or a launch system, so long as they can pretend it's cheaper at first and jerk people along. Its another thing entirely to own what it costs to design such things from the start, and that's what would be required to design and build a TRITON, a NAUTILUS-X, a real human spaceflight program. So instead, we have a phony spaceflight program.

IMHO, it's all in the numbers, and pretending there might be gold on the Moon won't change the realities we face. If you need evidence for what I'm saying, look back at the last 60 years, that people have been proposing space travel for the masses, and you'll be forced to agree, there's a problem with the notion. The sooner we realize this, the sooner we'll turn full attention to real answers like M-E thrusters.

[HopDavid]

IMHO, it's all in the numbers, and pretending there might be gold on the Moon won't change the realities we face.

Pretending? This notion comes from looking at the LCROSS ejecta. See the October 2010 issue of Science.

And propellant high on the slopes of earth's gravity well changes the numbers a lot.

[Aero]

... a Mars Colony is a multi-trillion dollar ... I made this argument and explanation over at NSF several times, which is why the rocket engineers there don't much like me, but I'll make the point again.

That is opinion stated as fact. This is an illustration of why the rocket engineers don't like you very much. It is not fact, only hyperbole. If you have any basis for this claim, show me the numbers. Otherwise your unfounded opinions are just muddying the water.

IMHO, it's all in the numbers, and pretending there might be gold on the Moon won't change the realities we face.

Pretending their might be You have just called everyone who worked on LCOSS incompetent. Do you wonder why they don't like you? If you have any data at all, show why the reported LCROSS project results are wrong. Otherwise we must discount your post as self aggrandizing opinion based on ignorance.

[Aero]

@HopDavid
I agree with you that rocket fuel derived from lunar water is the most valuable product on the moon. Without this resource it is very hard (Impossible?) to make a case for lunar gold. With this resourse, and adding a filling station in LLO (1.87 km/s delta V), then on to EML1 (0.64 km/s delta V), then on to GEO (1.38 km/s delta V) we arrive at LEO (1.63 km/s delta V) with our product. See Wikipedia,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta-v_budget

I note that the numbers from Wikipedia don't quite match your chart. The Wikipedia numbers assume use of the Oberth effect and aerobraking, I expect that is the difference.

From LEO we need to transport the gold to the surface which is no big deal if transport is available. If we need to launch something from the surface specifically to retrieve the gold from LEO, then we have the 9.5 km/s delta V cost problem. What would SpaceX charge for that?

The reason I look so hard at the gold instead of just the water is that water and rocket fuel have little value on Earth, while gold is a valuable market commodity which could justify space activity. I wrote could, I don't know if the case for gold closes.

[HopDavid]

@HopDavid
I agree with you that rocket fuel derived from lunar water is the most valuable product on the moon. Without this resource it is very hard (Impossible?) to make a case for lunar gold. With this resourse, and adding a filling station in LLO (1.87 km/s delta V), then on to EML1 (0.64 km/s delta V), then on to GEO (1.38 km/s delta V) we arrive at LEO (1.63 km/s delta V) with our product. See Wikipedia,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta-v_budget

I note that the numbers from Wikipedia don't quite match your chart. The Wikipedia numbers assume use of the Oberth effect and aerobraking, I expect that is the difference.

All my calculations employ the Oberth benefit. My illustrations above also show paths that employ aerobraking (the red lines).

Wikipedia's numbers are in the same ball park as mine. Whether my figures or Wikipedia's are more accurate, I don't know.

Making stops along the way will increase your total delta V. Sort of like making side trips off the interstate will increase the miles traveled. But it makes sense to make side trips to get gas. But not side trips every 20 miles.

I would advocate going from the moon to EML1. And then EML1 to LEO. This would make propellant tanker round trips less than 5 km/s. Making stops at LLO and GEO is overkill.

The reason I look so hard at the gold instead of just the water is that water and rocket fuel have little value on Earth,

Use on earth isn't the only potential market for propellant.

We have a enormous orbital assets. Presently earth orbits are so hard to reach that the satellite paradigm is design, build, launch and then discard. Routine access would make it economic to design modular satellites amenable to upgrades, repair and refueling.

Making access to GEO and other earth orbits routine would have huge economic benefits.

while gold is a valuable market commodity which could justify space activity. I wrote could, I don't know if the case for gold closes.

Besides making lunar mining plausible, EML1 propellant and supplies would make asteroid mining plausible. And the potential value of asteroid resources is mind boggling.

[GIThruster]

IMHO, it's all in the numbers, and pretending there might be gold on the Moon won't change the realities we face.

Pretending? This notion comes from looking at the LCROSS ejecta. See the October 2010 issue of Science.

And propellant high on the slopes of earth's gravity well changes the numbers a lot.

Fron the NSF link above: "According to the LCROSS results reported in Gladstone et al. (2010, Science), gold concentrations of "< 1.6%" were reported to be consistent with the data. Gladstone himself was quick to point out on Dr. Spudis's blog that these represent an upper limit only: it shouldn't be taken as evidence for any gold at all. "

Even if SpaceX could lower launch and travel costs by another two orders magnitude, we could not afford to go to the Moon hoping to find gold.

[GIThruster]

That is opinion stated as fact.

No. It's fact stated as opinion. If you want to source it, there was a NASA study published as a book through the Smithsonian about 1976 on the costs involved in Satellite Solar Power. That study showed pretty conclusively that things like satelllite power station systems, Moon bases and Mars colonies are in todays terms, mult-trillion dollar projects.

Likewise, if you know what ISS costs, you know that's a conservative estimate. Pretending to get instead of more of the same historic cost overruns, you will suddenly see savings that amounts to much more than 99% the real cost, is indeed pretending.

If you have any data at all, show why the reported LCROSS project results are wrong

LCROSS is correct. It didn't show any gold on the Moon. They showed if there were any at all, it would have a maximum value of 1.6% at the point of impact. there is no data to support the notion there is ANY gold on the Moon.

Like I said, people need to stop pretending. If you want the average Joe to ever have a chance to get off this rock, it has to be using something vastly cheaper, safer, more convenient and more efficient than a reaction engine. I'm all for SpaceX and SeaLaunch lowering launch costs, but that sort of thing is NEVER going to make spaceflight available to the average person. We need a better solution, and so long as we fail to look for it, we will fail to find it.

[williatw]

Like I said, people need to stop pretending. If you want the average Joe to ever have a chance to get off this rock, it has to be using something vastly cheaper, safer, more convenient and more efficient than a reaction engine. I'm all for SpaceX and SeaLaunch lowering launch costs, but that sort of thing is NEVER going to make spaceflight available to the average person. We need a better solution, and so long as we fail to look for it, we will fail to find it.

My premise was considerably more modest than that:

Elon Musk said elsewhere that he thinks that 500K a ticket is the price for being able to send people to Mars privately at a profit. He said that he thinks that there are at least 8000 and probably very many more willing/able to pay. Let assume he is right. How would the colony make money? How about: The Cayman Islands in space?. Mars has one big thing to trade upon, its location beyond all claims of any government as to sovereignty. Meaning it does not have to follow any earth laws. The colony bank of mars (probably a bunch of server/routers/cpu's in a room) could offer clients tax free interest on deposits (say 5% more for big investors) and total confidentiality. Records not available to any gov agency wanting to know anything about, no legal obligation to do so.

Just wanted to see if Musk is right about 500K per person to mars (which works out to be about $3000/lb assuming person/effects ave wt 170lbs) how said Mars colony could pay for it self. Thank you for the links on TRITON like its idea when I first heard about it. Love the idea of it being "trimodal". A nuclear thermal like Nerva, add O2 to the H2 exhaust for extra thrust, and finally nuclear electric when the reactor is ratcheted back.

[GIThruster]

Thank you for the links on TRITON like its idea when I first heard about it. Love the idea of it being "trimodal". A nuclear thermal like Nerva, add O2 to the H2 exhaust for extra thrust, and finally nuclear electric when the reactor is ratcheted back.

I think when P&W did the study back in 2004, they estimated $1B for a working system. If we go by experience, that means at least 3X that in 2004 dollars and there's no guarantee you have a robust system that can be started and stopped many dozens of times over many years without refurbishment, which is what you need for a long term transport system. High temp O2 is very corrosive. I have heard though, the P&W people have solved that already. Would be great if true.

Personally, I think a working TRITON would put us much farther ahead than the money already spent on Orion's bits and pieces. Doesn't mean we'll ever see money spent that way. I know I wrote the Augustine Commission at length arguing for the idea and that didn't seem to make a dent.

I'd be curious to see this $500k to the Moon estimate of Musks. You're sure that's not urban legend? Right now he's hoping to get $50M/ 7-man flight to LEO, or $700k@, just to go round trip to ISS or Bigelow's Space Bed 'n Breakfast. I can't see how he'll ever get the savings to go to Mars for less. I'd think given the infrastructure needed, he'd need at least 2+ orders magnitude increase or more. . closer to $70B@. And that's on a budget. Virgin galactic gets $200,000@ for suborbital flight and that's literally 1/10 the energy needed for orbit.

And yes, I overstepped when I referenced what would make a "golden age" of human spaceflight--every man and woman being able to fly in space as they do now in air--is not what you were talking about. For human exploration, we could get by with Rockets. For tourism to LEO rockets ought to do. I just can't see even billionaires going to Mars with the costs involved, and Colonies. . .that's just impossible with chemical.

[HopDavid]

I think when P&W did the study back in 2004, they estimated $1B for a working system.

Cite, please.

[hanelyp]

... A nuclear thermal like Nerva, add O2 to the H2 exhaust for extra thrust, and finally nuclear electric when the reactor is ratcheted back.

... High temp O2 is very corrosive. I have heard though, the P&W people have solved that already. Would be great if true.

The systems like that I've read about inject the O2 downstream of the reactor. Only the post combustion chamber and expansion nozzle have to deal with hot oxygen.