Elon Musk says he will put millions of people on Mars.

[GIThruster]

For an answer to that, you need to go to part 3 in the series, time index between 8 and 9.5 minutes

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uciv0Xe ... re=related

Honestly folks, if the intention really is to consider Musk's proposal for Mars, y'all need to watch all four parts. It's just a 1 hour address.

[williatw]

For an answer to that, you need to go to part 3 in the series, time index between 8 and 9.5 minutes

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uciv0Xe ... re=related

Honestly folks, if the intention really is to consider Musk's proposal for Mars, y'all need to watch all four parts. It's just a 1 hour address.

Okay watched it thanks. He seems to be saying that "electric propulsion" is why he thinks the launch window could be opened from 2 weeks to as much as 6 months. "Electric propulsion" in this application would almost certainly be nuclear electric. Sounds like an endorsement for TRITON. It could deliver an initial thermal burn (augmented by LOX afterburner or not) and a steady electric burn from the powered down reactor during the mars trip. I also like that he mentioned something else myself and others here have said..multiple launches from earth prior to the earth/mars launch window opening up, making the maximal advantage you can. With reusable rockets you could have dozens (perhaps eventually hundred's) of launches parked in earth orbit waiting for the window to open. If only he would say something about financing, as in how the colony would pay for itself/make profit..although he did say in response to a question that he thought it would be public & private.

[Skipjack]

I thought I read out of it that they wanted to use electric propulsion for cargo and NTR for manned transportation. NTRs have a much higher thrust and thus are quicker to get out of earths gravity well.

[GIThruster]

What I got out of it is Elon doesn't claim to know much about either electric or thermal nuclear. He was predisposed against all nuclear until he offered to find out more, and he predicated his point about electric that it has to be enough thrust to make a difference. Primarily though, he's focused on chemical especially using kerosene, and my guess is, he thinks if he had to, he could do it all with just that.

What he did say he'd need, is about 1/4 of 1% of the GDP of the US involved, and he's said at other times he thinks if he could bring the price of transit down to about $500,000 per person, he'd get people to sign up to move to Mars. He didn't say how they'd earn a living there. Seemed to me what he needs is 10,000 independently wealthy people who can move themselves there and form their own new businesses to produce on Mars--not for transport of goods back to Earth, but merely to continue to exist. He might indeed find 10,000 people like that, who could each bring millions of dollars in assets to Mars over the course of several years. If he could get a hundred movie stars, producers, directors, athletes and television personalities to each bankroll half a dozen people who were not worthless to such a project, he might get those numbers.

Combined with only modest public support, that might work. I'm not sure though, that he can count on the public support as readily as the private investment, and to gather either one, he'd need the other.

[williatw]

What he did say he'd need, is about 1/4 of 1% of the GDP of the US involved, and he's said at other times he thinks if he could bring the price of transit down to about $500,000 per person, he'd get people to sign up to move to Mars. He didn't say how they'd earn a living there. Seemed to me what he needs is 10,000 independently wealthy people who can move themselves there and form their own new businesses to produce on Mars--not for transport of goods back to Earth, but merely to continue to exist. He might indeed find 10,000 people like that, who could each bring millions of dollars in assets to Mars over the course of several years. If he could get a hundred movie stars, producers, directors, athletes and television personalities to each bankroll half a dozen people who were not worthless to such a project, he might get those numbers.
Combined with only modest public support, that might work. I'm not sure though, that he can count on the public support as readily as the private investment, and to gather either one, he'd need the other.

The colony needs a way to be immediately profitable, be it on Mars or the moon. The one thing a mars colony has to trade on is it location above and beyond any earth laws or taxes. In the short to mid-term probably all it has to trade on. Although I suppose if it was done privately you could try to profit from the trip itself. Turn the whole thing into an Imax/pay-per-view extravaganza. Some kind of reality TV thing with subscribers tuning in (for a price) for the latest goings on Mars. Still even if the colony is done privately costing only low billions doubt if that would come close to paying for it. There is probably no equivalent of the Inca gold on mars or even the Virginia tobacco. Assets however can be transferred electronically at the speed of light for cheap. 100's or 1000's of billions of dollars could be held inside the bank of mars gathering interest(and making money for the colony) tax free.

[GIThruster]

The one thing a mars colony has to trade on is it location above and beyond any earth laws or taxes.

You can do that with a big boat, and if the general public is going to pay anything, then the project is a colony, not an independent nation.

I think rather, those who move there will have to be in a position that they don't need to generate an income except relative to their fellow colonists. They need to each be supplying goods and services in their own colony. I can't imagine them sending profit back to Earth (and neither can Musk) apart from better assured survival of the species (which they cannot trade off) so really, the economic setting is vastly more difficult than you imagine.

[williatw]

You can do that with a big boat, and if the general public is going to pay anything, then the project is a colony, not an independent nation. I think rather, those who move there will have to be in a position that they don't need to generate an income except relative to their fellow colonists. They need to each be supplying goods and services in their own colony. I can't imagine them sending profit back to Earth (and neither can Musk) apart from better assured survival of the species (which they cannot trade off) so really, the economic setting is vastly more difficult than you imagine.

To your "big boat" idea: http://www.economist.com/node/21540395 The gist of it is that the world governments particularly the US, try to find ways around their supposed "sovereignty" of the sea colonies, easy to do when you are readily within reach. But mars is pretty far away. And by international treaty which the US is signatory to no nation has any recognized claim of sovereignty over any part of space or celestial body. So even if part of the financing was government the colony could still be independent. It wouldn't strictly speaking have to be a "nation" just a privately owned independent concern (at least to start with). Thinking anyone rich enough to move to mars might be more interested in moving their assets there so they can make tax free interest off them. Said rich investors might finance the colony including personnel. The colony wouldn't be sending profit back to earth per se; they would be investing it in the colony. The bank of mars would take its profits(from loans to people on earth like any bank) and use it to import more equipment/personnel to continue the growth of the mars economy. Earth would make money selling them said equipment investors back on earth make money off their accounts in bank of mars paying higher interest than most earth banks tax free.

[GIThruster]

But mars is pretty far away. And by international treaty which the US is signatory to no nation has any recognized claim of sovereignty over any part of space or celestial body. So even if part of the financing was government the colony could still be independent. It wouldn't strictly speaking have to be a "nation" just a privately owned independent concern (at least to start with).

Sorry but I don't think you make any sense at all. Certainly, the US is never going to put out hundreds of billions of dollars to support a colony, and not be sovereign over it. The treaty you're referring to has no import in a planetary system where real financial concerns exist, and if getting a colony started is predicated upon public financial support, you can be assured that support will demand sovereignty. Why would they not?

You need to remember, we're talking about more money than it would take to purchase most countries in the world. Avoiding taxes is not a driving force any more than it is in moving high tech investment from CA to TX. People have reasons to be in CA so that's where they are, despite the huge tax advantages in TX, NV and Isle of Man.

Personally, I don't see an economic case for a Mars colony that can survive even surface scrutiny until transport can be made safe, quick, convenient and economical; and you can't do that with rockets.

[williatw]

But mars is pretty far away. And by international treaty which the US is signatory to no nation has any recognized claim of sovereignty over any part of space or celestial body. So even if part of the financing was government the colony could still be independent. It wouldn't strictly speaking have to be a "nation" just a privately owned independent concern (at least to start with).

Sorry but I don't think you make any sense at all. Certainly, the US is never going to put out hundreds of billions of dollars to support a colony, and not be sovereign over it. The treaty you're referring to has no import in a planetary system where real financial concerns exist, and if getting a colony started is predicated upon public financial support, you can be assured that support will demand sovereignty. Why would they not?

You need to remember, we're talking about more money than it would take to purchase most countries in the world. Avoiding taxes is not a driving force any more than it is in moving high tech investment from CA to TX. People have reasons to be in CA so that's where they are, despite the huge tax advantages in TX, NV and Isle of Man.

Personally, I don't see an economic case for a Mars colony that can survive even surface scrutiny until transport can be made safe, quick, convenient and economical; and you can't do that with rockets.

Sorry but I though we were assuming a Musk started colony for low billions, not a NASA US gov one for 100's of billions if not more. If it is the later I would agree with you, but it appears that Musk thinks if he can get his rockets reusable. If so he can he do it for allot less. I mean 500K a ticket suggest low billions in startup cost, that could be done privately.

[GIThruster]

You need to watch the vids again. Musk said he believes he'll need volunteers who can pay the $500,000 one way ticket price, plus one expects they'd take their belongings in the form of useful items, plus 1/4 of 1% of the GDP. That is trillions of dollars over time.

[Diogenes]

I haven't been posting (or keeping up with) much on this topic lately, but the other day I got to thinking more about it. I recently read an article how a hall effect thruster saved a very expensive Military spy satellite, and It reminded me of previous articles of such.

It seems evident to me that a more sensible approach to the first major problem (getting stuff into a high stable orbit) would be to launch stuff into the lowest stable orbit, then use VASIMR or Ion engines to boost it into high orbit. I was envisioning sort of a orbital tug boat that could grab cargo pods and continuously raise their orbits. The "tug boat" could be refilled with Xenon, (or whatever the reaction mass desired) while in orbit.


Another tug boat could be used to get stuff to the Moon or even Mars.
This seems to me to be the best method for getting usable payload to the destination at the lowest practicable price. Not useful for moving humans because it takes too long, but great for moving cargo/material.

To GET the cargo pods in Orbit, read the chapter on the "Rainbow bridge" in the "Millennium project."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Millen ... Easy_Steps


Till we get a space elevator, this is the next best thing.

[GIThruster]

Pretty sure NASA did a study on the notion of an inter-orbital tug just a few years ago and found that simply attaching thrusters and fuel to sats was a more cost effective solution. What this turns out to be is another stage, and since the sat needs to be reoriented regularly for use, jettisoning that stage is worthwhile--which leaves you right back with the solution in use today.

BTW, that book was some cutting edge stuff when it was written 20 years ago. Its been the focus of pretty intense scrutiny since and some of the ideas have fallen away. Laser rockets are not a very promising idea, but in general, the book was visionary and still in some ways useful today. I would note to you that the efficiency limit of an OTEC, cannot make them economically viable. They simply cost way too much for the power they produce, and that was the foundation-stone of savage's thesis.

[ladajo]

Last I talked with those inside the satellite desgin loop, the idea was to go modular, with automated servicing packages. much cheaper to launch a new gas module and drive it to the bird needing a new fuel package(number one killer of satellites) than to fly a whole new bird. lots of work has been done lately on these concepts to include trials and physical testing. On orbit rondeveau is huge. There was even talk of trying to do service life extensions of some existing stupid expensive birds by flying up and attaching symbiotic "service modules" to symbiotically attach themselves and provide manuevering service. And, if successful, later detach and either de-orbit or trash park themselves to be replaced by a follow on "service" module. Some of the bords in GEO are ridiculously expensive, and this type of approach has great merit for several large reasons, the most being coverage continuity and cost saving.
The second leading killer of birds is battery life cycles. This one could be fixed by finding a way to tap the primary power bus of a flying bird with an external automated module to provide a new battery pack (and maybe fuel and thrusters).
There is lots of stuff churning in this area. very cool stuff indeed.

[KitemanSA]

It seems evident to me that a more sensible approach to the first major problem (getting stuff into a high stable orbit) would be to launch stuff into the lowest stable orbit, then use VASIMR or Ion engines to boost it into high orbit. I was envisioning sort of a orbital tug boat that could grab cargo pods and continuously raise their orbits. The "tug boat" could be refilled with Xenon, (or whatever the reaction mass desired) while in orbit.

Look up electro-dynamic boosted HASTOL (or better Hypersonic Skyhook). Unit we have an elevator, that is the most efficient. ZERO reaction mass (unless you count the Earth).

[kunkmiester]

Any lunar transfer vehicle would have a great number of secondary uses, being mannable, and maneuverable. Servicing satellites and such would make absolute sense, and help with the return on investment--and the thing is basically a fuel depot already. A larger Mars vehicle while in orbit would be somewhat similar, possibly seconding as a factory using residual energy from an idling reactor when not traveling.

A moon mission might be a couple of weeks long, but the crew can potentially stay up for a few months without trouble. I was looking at having a proper crew on board--experts who know how to run the systems, so the passengers can focus on their own work if desired. This crew could go up and stay up, make a couple runs to the moon, and spend the rest of the time working on satellites and such.