Mars Colony financing

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Posts: 1821
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:15 pm
Location: Ohio

Postby williatw » Sun Dec 04, 2011 4:54 pm

Aero wrote:
... in a given block of time I would make more profit than you would because of greater cargo volume.

No. You mean revenue. In a given block of time you would have more revenue because of the greater cargo volume. Then if your costs are the same as his, you would be left with more profit, but costs are the question, aren't they.
Assuming I can move say 10X the mass of cargo in a given time, even if my shipping cost are 5X times his. Yes I would pass on the higher shipping cost to my customer Mars. But I can get Mar's cargo to them much faster and in much greater amounts. I can ship more cargo per flight, fly more often because of greater launch windows and get there more quickly. If a customer needs something badly, they will pay more to get it faster in greater amounts more often

Posts: 2252
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 8:50 pm

Postby hanelyp » Mon Dec 05, 2011 12:04 am

williatw wrote: Exactly to my point about a Mars would be tough for any country to enforce its laws about taxes or anything else when it takes months to get there. Unlike seasteads all bets would be on in the case of mars. Love to see the IRS collect Taxes from people living on Mars(US citizens or not) or investors on earth with secret accounts in the bank of Mars.

My counter point is that unless the colony is economically independent fro Earth, a government on Earth doesn't have to go to the colony to hurt it. Trade ships and colonist accounts with Earth side entities are both potentially subject to sanctions.

Bitcoin was mentioned as a "bank" that isn't a bank, just a 3rd party that facilitates financial transfers. If they were found to be facilitating illicit transfers they'd be shut down quickly. Being located outside a government's jurisdiction doesn't help much if it has to deal with banks subject to a government's rule.

Posts: 47
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 3:10 am

Postby HopDavid » Mon Dec 05, 2011 12:10 am

williatw wrote:"Thought" they can be re-used isn't the same as data.

Ironic from someone singing the praises of a Power Point rocket.

From The Rocket Company by Patrick Stiennon and David Hoerr "An off-the-shelf RL10A3-3A, with 16,500 pounds of thrust has been run for over 30 minutes without any maintenance. Pratt & Whitney is confident that one of their RL10s could make 25 flights before some maintenance might be necessary on the bearings and the gear train and perhaps 100 flights before the gear train would need to be rebuilt . The ultimate life of the current engine design was estimated to be about 130 flights, based on cryogenic thermal cycling of the bell."

williatw wrote:But consider this: lets assume for the sake of argument that a Triton NTR can only be used a max of 5X times(there & back)

You haven't provided a shred of evidence this vehicle would be reusable at all.

What points is it moving between? Low Earth Orbit and Low Mars Orbit? What is the delta V budget of this vehicle? You still haven't given me temperature in the rocket engine. No numbers, just hand-waving.

williatw wrote:before it is toast, but a chemical rocket can be re-used let us say 25 times (there and back). Considering the much greater SI of NTR 800-1200s vs 450s for a chemical rocket in a given block of lets say 12 years, and you and I were competing shipping companies. Who could haul the most cargo to Mars at a profit?

"Mars" and "profit" in the same sentence? We're not on the same page.

williatw wrote:I can haul more cargo per trip, my launch windows are wider than yours so I can launch more often because I have more DeltaV, and my trip times are faster. I can use the same propellant banks as you can but haul how many times the payload(at a profit) than you can in a given block of time. Even though my shipping cost are higher than yours because of my less re-usable system, in a given block of time I would make more profit than you would because of greater cargo volume.

EML1 has a 2.4 km/s advantage over LEO. Given a fully fueled and stocked ship departing from EML1, chemical also has wide launch windows and the option of shorter trip times.

Given water and and air at EML1, it becomes possible to provide adequate radiation shielding and extra consumables for the crew. An 8 month trip is no longer a suicide mission. This would lessen the need for short trips.

Carl White
Posts: 312
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 10:44 pm

Postby Carl White » Wed Dec 12, 2012 1:54 am

Going back to the "Bank of Mars" idea, why not start it on the Earth.

Just set up a regular bank offering regular services but with conditions in its incorporation that all profits either be applied toward opening access to Mars in their given year or held toward opening access.

I'm sure there would be people interested in banking with the "Bank of Ares" to support the cause, and probably many more people who wouldn't care except that a branch might open within easy reach.

We all know how profitable banks can be.

Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests