Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Economic Viability of Mars Colonization (1998)

aleph.se

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 38 posts

Re: The Economic Viability of Mars Colonization (1998)

#21

Post by TeMPOraL »

CryptoPunk wrote: post #3

The cost would be enormous. Much of what's consumed on the Mars settlement would have to be imported from another planet (Earth). During the early expansion phase the need for imported construction material would be exorbitant. We're talking a constant flow of goods being launched from Earth to sustain construction. And expansion and sustainance would be very capital intensive, due to a lack of a breathable atmospher…

One trick is to dig in. A large cave would provide both structural support and radiation shielding for an initial settlement. But it's true that a Mars colony would initially require a huge flow of goods from Earth - even if they get a proper farm going, they'd still need replacement parts for all high-tech equipment that's being used. That is what I think will be the primary import - high-tech components.

As for costs, dropping them is precisely the goal SpaceX is based around. The BFR isn't just meant to enable transport of people - it also aims at being able to move a lot of mass to Mars for cheap.

Re: The Economic Viability of Mars Colonization (1998)

#22

Post by maxxxxx »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #19
maxxxxx wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would like to see more prototyping of techniques that could be used on Mars to create materials. It seems there is a lot of handwaving but not much real-world engineering. Before we haven't run a long-term trial for surviving in some desert on earth it would be irresponsible to fly to Mars.

There is some prototyping, but not nearly enough IMO, and it doesn't hit the news that much. I agree about desert trials (or better yet, somewhere dry and cold near the pole). I'm not sure why this isn't done - whether it's just a money issue, or there's less benefit to be had from such test than we think?

" whether it's just a money issue, or there's less benefit to be had from such test than we think? "

I think NASA will do them but their dates for such a mission are decades away. Others who want to do this earlier are probably just not serious. With current tech this would be a suicide mission. Any little problem will kill the settlers.

Re: The Economic Viability of Mars Colonization (1998)

#23

Post by CryptoPunk »

captain_perl wrote: post #5

Bitcoin ICOs, Mars colonization ... whatever happened to critical thinking?

Token sales happen on Ethereum, not Bitcoin. And ironically, it would potentially be a good way to fund space exploration:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCBki5sBw5E

If EOS can raise $4 billion over a year-long token sale, we could surely raise a few billion for a Mars colony that could change the destiny of the human species.

Re: The Economic Viability of Mars Colonization (1998)

#24

Post by abecedarius »

This paper calls Mars uniquely suitable, but only briefly references O'Neill on free-space habitats built out of lunar or asteroid material. His main argument against seems to be the need to protect from radiation, but it's not like O'Neill and successors did not know -- they had designs for that. Yes, a habitat with gravity and shielding and agriculture would be expensive. So would colonizing Mars.

Re: The Economic Viability of Mars Colonization (1998)

#25

Post by CryptoPunk »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #21
CryptoPunk wrote: post #3

The cost would be enormous. Much of what's consumed on the Mars settlement would have to be imported from another planet (Earth). During the early expansion phase the need for imported construction material would be exorbitant. We're talking a constant flow of goods being launched from Earth to sustain construction. And expansion and sustainance would be very capital intensive, due to a lack of a breathable atmospher…

One trick is to dig in. A large cave would provide both structural support and radiation shielding for an initial settlement. But it's true that a Mars colony would initially require a huge flow of goods from Earth - even if they get a proper farm going, they'd still need replacement parts for all high-tech equipment that's being used. That is what I think will be the primary import - high-tech components. As for cos…

I'd like to see a breakdown of the kind of equipment and labor resources needed to dig out underground habitats.

To get to the point where a Mars colony is self-sufficient in producing things like heavy-duty construction equipment and solar panels could require obscene capital expenditures.

Not saying that it wouldn't be worth doing - imagine just all the technological spin-offs that would come from overcoming the challenges of creating a self-sustaining settlement on another planet, not to mention making an entire planet's worth of resources accessible to us - just that the scope of what it would require to pull off should be appreciated.

>>The BFR isn't just meant to enable transport of people - it also aims at being able to move a lot of mass to Mars for cheap.

I agree. The BFR will be a game-changer.

Re: The Economic Viability of Mars Colonization (1998)

#26

Post by Nokinside »

LeifCarrotson wrote: post #13
Nokinside wrote: post #10

In the end it depends on the economic incentives, or lack of them. The potential economic value for space exploration comes from satellites orbiting earth (communication, sensors), mining near earth asteroids for rare and expensive minerals and possibly even energy generations. Moon is possible destination because it could serve Earth. From the point of financing the effort Mars is just a sink. First spend hundreds o…

> The potential economic value for space exploration comes from ... mining near earth asteroids for rare and expensive minerals As the article describes, mining asteroids for rare and expensive minerals is more viable from Mars. Earth is in an incredibly deep gravity well: it's remarkable that we made it out with just chemical rockets, an Earth just 1.5x larger in diameter would need a stack of something like 20 Satu…

The article is written assuming colonization is happening (colonization would generate demand) For colonization to happen, there is need for incentive. The article is not giving it.

Asteroids near earth provide wast quantities of water and there is cheap energy available (the Sun). Asteroids also have hydrocarbons. Asteroid mining would serve earth. Mining mars would not be competitive source of minerals for Earth.

Asteroid mining is easier to automatize. Move them even closer to earth and use partial automation and remote control.

The metals in asteroids are easier to mine because usually they have not been oxidized like they are on the Earth or in the Mars, nor are they buried deep in the ground. It's possible that there are just nodules to pick up.

Mars has low gravity, but the delta-v that determines the cost is still huge compared to asteroids. Delta-V to nearest asteroids from LEO is ~3.3. Delta-v from LEO to Mars is 9.3.

Access to Mars is also technically more challenging (Mars landers fail often. The few asteroid that have been done have been a success).

Re: The Economic Viability of Mars Colonization (1998)

#27

Post by TeMPOraL »

CryptoPunk wrote: post #25
TeMPOraL wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One trick is to dig in. A large cave would provide both structural support and radiation shielding for an initial settlement. But it's true that a Mars colony would initially require a huge flow of goods from Earth - even if they get a proper farm going, they'd still need replacement parts for all high-tech equipment that's being used. That is what I think will be the primary import - high-tech components. As for cos…

I'd like to see a breakdown of the kind of equipment and labor resources needed to dig out underground habitats. To get to the point where a Mars colony is self-sufficient in producing things like heavy-duty construction equipment and solar panels could require obscene capital expenditures. Not saying that it wouldn't be worth doing - imagine just all the technological spin-offs that would come from overcoming the ch…

I suppose I shouldn't have written "dig in", where I meant less actual digging, and more of adapting existing caves and lava tunnels.

Also, solar panels I place in the list of high-tech components that would need to be imported. Curiously though, I recall reading that wind power could be used on Mars. A wind plant could be mostly fabricated from local material, with only electrical components sourced from Earth, and apparently wind power is competitive with solar on Mars - the atmosphere is less dense, but solar panels also provide less due to R^2 drop in power per unit of area with distance.

I agree it won't be easy - or cheap - but both the prospect of a colony and all the potential spin-offs make it worth it.

Re: The Economic Viability of Mars Colonization (1998)

#28

Post by TeMPOraL »

maxxxxx wrote: post #22
TeMPOraL wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is some prototyping, but not nearly enough IMO, and it doesn't hit the news that much. I agree about desert trials (or better yet, somewhere dry and cold near the pole). I'm not sure why this isn't done - whether it's just a money issue, or there's less benefit to be had from such test than we think?

" whether it's just a money issue, or there's less benefit to be had from such test than we think? " I think NASA will do them but their dates for such a mission are decades away. Others who want to do this earlier are probably just not serious. With current tech this would be a suicide mission. Any little problem will kill the settlers.

On Earth, you can always airlift people at the earliest sign of trouble, so I don't think the risk is that big. And even semi-serious attempts could give wealth of data useful for actual mission.

Re: The Economic Viability of Mars Colonization (1998)

#29

Post by maxxxxx »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #28
maxxxxx wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" whether it's just a money issue, or there's less benefit to be had from such test than we think? " I think NASA will do them but their dates for such a mission are decades away. Others who want to do this earlier are probably just not serious. With current tech this would be a suicide mission. Any little problem will kill the settlers.

On Earth, you can always airlift people at the earliest sign of trouble, so I don't think the risk is that big. And even semi-serious attempts could give wealth of data useful for actual mission.

Should have phrased this more precise: I meant on Mars every little problem will kill you. On Earth you can rescue people, no problem.

Re: The Economic Viability of Mars Colonization (1998)

#30

Post by CryptoPunk »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #27
CryptoPunk wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd like to see a breakdown of the kind of equipment and labor resources needed to dig out underground habitats. To get to the point where a Mars colony is self-sufficient in producing things like heavy-duty construction equipment and solar panels could require obscene capital expenditures. Not saying that it wouldn't be worth doing - imagine just all the technological spin-offs that would come from overcoming the ch…

I suppose I shouldn't have written "dig in", where I meant less actual digging, and more of adapting existing caves and lava tunnels. Also, solar panels I place in the list of high-tech components that would need to be imported. Curiously though, I recall reading that wind power could be used on Mars. A wind plant could be mostly fabricated from local material, with only electrical components sourced from Earth, and…

Interesting, thanks for the reply.
Post reply on HN