The case for an economy in space

[Kaos]

First of all: Text is a bad medium for transporting emotions. I get at some points the slight feeling, that you take something personal. At most points I do not get the impression. If that is the case, let me assure, nothing is meant personal. And not to harm someones feelings values more for me than gaining right in the discussion. So please let me know if and where I wrote something you took personal or something like that.

Precisely what it says on the tin and what it's commonly assumed to mean; A colony that requires no significant inputs in order to maintain viability.

You avoided my question: The community means by self sustaining, that nothing but solar radiation, aka light, is needed for the colony to survive over a long period of time. But I would consider light significant. If you say "no significant input" then yes, it is not possible. Furthermore the whole discussion is senseless. So I assume for the rest of the answer that you mean "yes light is ok", as the community mostly sees it

Again, you've forgotten one of the benefits of trade is to obtain goods or materials that we cannot produce ourselves, or which would be extraordinarily difficult to produce economically in sufficient quantities, or which are just flat out cheaper to import. A key example would be titanium - which the US has virtually none of AFAIK.

Let start with this source: http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/titanium/stat/

So 95% is used for making white color, which is only done, because of cheap imports. Lets say, the USA tried to get self sustained in titanium. Then the would use other white pigments which do not contain titanium. From the remaining 5% a lot can be replaced with other materials.

All which you do not want to do unnecessarily, which is why no one does it as long the world price is so cheap.

Now we are already at a number below the current US production. But we can go further: A lot of mines for rutile, ilmenite, and leucoxene (the main ores for titanium) are not used, because the purity is so low that it is cheaper to import than to mine. But if you have no other sources and you really want titanium, you could mine it and get more expensive titanium.

Then there are further minerals containing titanium, which are not mined, because it is harder to get it out, which would be too expensive.

All in all the USA could also increase there production to their consumption. Expensive, but possible.

And this is the very reason, why no country is self sustaining, because it is cheaper not to be. But they could if they did not had the cheap imports.

We do not produce ourselves, because someone else does it cheaper. It is the same with countries as with persons: I do not wash my dishes, I put them in the machine, because this is more time efficient, including the work to afford the machine. So in my personal resources it is cheaper the dish washer. But I am sure, that I can wash my dishes if the machine brakes.

Now let us pick a technical (and again a country sized) example: Producing cars. Years ago much more countries used to produce cars, but they do not do now. They do not have forgotten how to produce cars, the others could do it cheaper, so they stopped car production. If the cheap imports would vanish, they would produce their own cars again. Worse and more expensive ones, but nevertheless cars.

You've missed practically everything - because you've created the industry to "build up water cleaners and recyclers" out of thin air. In the real world, the tools and materials for doing so would consume a significant quantity of the 100 tons... and that's just for the "water industry".

No. I import the essential components. I cannot grow faster than I can gain the crucial imported parts.

Even back in the 15-1700's (the great age of colonization) nobody tried to build self sufficient colonies because even then you needed too much machinery (everything from looms to paint mills) and too many people to operate them and too many farmers to feed them... (And I haven't even mentioned the specialists needed to build the machinery.) We don't need quite so many people nowadays, but the equipment required is much more complex and difficult to build.

The more complex the technology is, the bigger the colony has to be for being self sustained. In the stone age we had a lot of self sustained colonies. In 1500-1700 the standards the people wanted grew bigger. So they took rather imports than to aim for self sustainability. But forced to do so, a lot of colonies would have survived (gotten self sustained). I think I even remember examples of ships wrecks in that time where the descendants managed to be well and alive on an island hundreds of years later. A situation clearly not made for self sustaining. I fail to find the sources right now, though.

The basic problem is that it's turtles all the way down, no process is independent, they all require infrastructure and bodies to support them. (And, as juanml82 correctly points out, there's a lot of processes that don't scale down well at all.)

It is not all the way down: There is stuff there. One just has to use it! Self sustaining on mars without using the water there, without using the light from the sun there, without using the carbon dioxide there, without using the available materials there: No way. But using all that it gets quite possible.

Nobody is debating whether or not Mars colonies are possible, but whether or not self sustaining colonies are possible.

Some people even argue that we cannot survive 1/3 g more than 5 years. So nobody is technical not correct, but I agree that we do not argue about that aspect.

[DerekL1963]

1: Define significant. All the food and water, and just about any purely mechanical spare parts can be produced locally on Mars, apart from "extreme" things like turbine blades, which would take a while longer before they can be produced on Mars. Bring a CnC Mill, a CnC Lathe and a Laser cutter. Surely those will fit in the 100 ton budget of the BFR/MCT?

Presuming you also ship the raw stock to feed those machines. And remember to stock the consumables (cutting fluid) they'll require. And spare tools to replace the ones that wear out (as well as spare parts for the machines themselves - and all the tools and equipment needed for said maintenance). Etc.. etc... Supporting a machine shop remotely gets complicated very quickly.

That's what I keep pointing out - you guys keep forgetting there are a lot of links to the chain. Stuff that's not obvious until you stop hand waving and actually think.

And no Kaos, I didn't avoid your question - words have meaning, and I answered in clear and unequivocal terms. (And stone age colonies are irrelevant. We aren't building stone age colonies in space.)

[juanml82]

I'm not knowledgeable about Martian geology, but I doubt you'll find every mineral a colony would need within 50 km of the colony. I'd assume, just like in Earth, that there are hundreds of kilometers between exploitable deposits of specific minerals - feel fee to correct me if I'm wrong.

Even more, exploiting those resources not only requires setting up railways for land transportation among the different mines, you need mining equipment, you need smelters and you need factories. Basically, you're creating an industrialized nation in a distant, incredibly hostile environment. An environment in which a scratch in one of the colonists EVA suits can lead to that person's death.

I can buy extracting ice from the poles to refuel the lander. But general manufacturing? No, that I don't. Not unless someone wants to expend more in Mars than they would expend on a middle sized existing Earth country.

[55delta]

Okay folks, time to break this up. I already mentioned that discussing if a colony could be self-sustaining was a topic for another thread. You may want to move this debate elsewhere, as you have not gone back to the topic of why there should be a colony. Otherwise this is getting too heated. Please and thank you.

[DBowman]

55delta - why not start a thread for the 'are colonies possible' question and link your OP. It might also be good to put a summary of the economic possibilities identified - but that's more onerous for you - we really need some kind of wiki-ish thing to work through possibilities and their cost benefit etc.

[SargeRho]

Presuming you also ship the raw stock to feed those machines. And remember to stock the consumables (cutting fluid) they'll require. And spare tools to replace the ones that wear out (as well as spare parts for the machines themselves - and all the tools and equipment needed for said maintenance). Etc.. etc... Supporting a machine shop remotely gets complicated very quickly.

Cutting fluid can be made on Mars. Spare parts that can't be made on Mars immediately can be brought. Tool bits can be produced on Mars, since Titanium (for Titanium Carbide tools) isn't exactly rare. For a while, producing those things will be more "expensive", but I don't think things being expensive to produce would matter all that much at the beginning, since it's unlikely that those colonies would run on a capitalist system.

[55delta]

55delta - why not start a thread for the 'are colonies possible' question and link your OP. It might also be good to put a summary of the economic possibilities identified - but that's more onerous for you - we really need some kind of wiki-ish thing to work through possibilities and their cost benefit etc.

I don't want to make a thread about if a self-sustaining colonies can be created because I already have my answer. My answer is yes, if there is some further efficiently and innovation in a number of industries, and a large pool of supplies until the 'bootstrapping' of industry can begin and a large knowledge base to both overcome various issues and build that future industry, I also define, 'self-sufficient colony' as a colony that doesn't depend on shipments from elsewhere to keep the colonists alive. I know these things might be possible because we've made remote colonies before that have flourished because they needed to flourish or die. History is not a perfect example, but it is a guide and we should learn from it. In addition, I'd like to remind people that necessity is the mother of invention and to not underestimate human ingenuity. So, if I have my own beliefs and definitions on the matter, why would I make a different forum thread to ask the question? It isn't my question.

My question is, 'Why go to space?' and I don't think I have all the answers yet. That is the purpose of this thread. Some people just can't stay on topic.

As for a wiki-ish thing...I don't have the resources to create one and I don't have the concentration to moderate one either. Although I'm starting to suspect that Elon Musk wants a Mars colony to get away from the people who say that it cannot be done. Think it's true?

[juanml82]

What Elon Musk wants is one thing. What Elon Musk can accomplish is another.

I think the question isn't "Why go to space". The answer is simple "because an alien race may be already targeting the Earth with a relativistic missile".

But humanity doesn't work that way. We don't do what's best for mankind in the long term. We do what we feel is best for each one of us, and more often than not, in the short term. So, I think we have several questions:

-What kind of economic activities can be done in space? There are several of those already happening and a few others might appear in the coming years. The main barrier here is the cost to put stuff into orbit.

-What kind of economic activities can be done, by people, in space? That adds far more complexities

-What kind of economic activities can be done, by people, in space beyond Earth orbit? Now we throw in radiation, possible long exposure to microgravity and keeping a limited number of people in constricted spaces for months, if not years, at a time.

-Can a space based economy demand/attract immigrants?

[DBowman]

I don't want to make a thread about if a self-sustaining colonies can be created because I already have my answer. My answer is yes, ... why would I make a different forum thread to ask the question? It isn't my question.

I agree with yes - I was just thinking in terms of making it easy for that conversation to move somewhere else for those who need to have it.

I made a thread: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/130856-The-case-for-self-sufficient-colonies-in-space so lets move the conversation re can/cannot over there.

As for a wiki-ish thing...I don't have the resources to create one and I don't have the concentration to moderate one either.

the wiki thing was just generalised wishful thinking, it seems to me like there is some kind of missing tool to support what you are trying to do in this thread.

[55delta]

I think the question isn't "Why go to space". The answer is simple "because an alien race may be already targeting the Earth with a relativistic missile".

You might want to re-phrase that. If 'why go to space' isn't the question, then you don't have one. And if you're scared of relativistic missiles, Then the question was never meant for you in the first place. Why are you even bothering to post? It'll happen or it won't and our current technology is enough to set them to launch as well. Although, in a different thread I would ask how any race so paranoid of potential vague threats ever makes relativistic missiles anyway? How have they not nuked themselves to oblivion with nuclear weapons first? Are they pulp-era super villains?

Yes, I agree that humans don't always do what's best for humanity in the long-term. But you see, human development rarely ever came about 'for the good of mankind' to begin with. Each inventor, each researcher had their own reasons for their part, some of which never even knew that they'd done anything more than just found an answer to a single question. I would love to just say that space is the reason itself to go there, but most people here agree that it isn't nearly a good enough reason. So we need better reasons. We must appeal to self-interest for small benefit of the whole if that's what it takes to create the whole in the first place. If we can sell whisky to rich snobs to get greater investment in space, how is that wrong? If we are selling to a market of the current six people on the ISS, is it not the start of a mining industry? People have travelled the length and breadth of this planet, on long and difficult journeys and at great personal risk, for lesser things which likely as not didn't exist. But their efforts helped map the world you live on. Should they not have done that? Would you rather not know? I've stuck to things that we know exist because we're all too educated to buy that the fountain of eternal youth is on Venus and I'd rather not just create more lies on the internet.

I'm not saying the space will ever be easy, or cheap, or very simple. What makes you think that it would need to be in the first place? You're unlikely to get there with that attitude. I want to know if the benefits are there, that the spirit that sent people out to the frontiers, where the maps said there were dragons, still has a place in humanity. If it doesn't, then what does it matter if the moon landing was faked? I have every reason to believe that it wasn't. But if we've no reason to send people out past LEO again, or even to LEO, then it would as well have been faked. If space needs to make money to get the ball rolling, then that's a step we should take. But I want to believe that humanity can go further, they just need a few good reasons. Got any?

Edited August 7, 2015 by 55delta

[Rakaydos]

Although, in a different thread I would ask how any race so paranoid of potential vague threats ever makes relativistic missiles anyway? How have they not nuked themselves to oblivion with nuclear weapons first? Are they pulp-era super villains?

No, they're polititions with trouble at home, who want to divert attention towards an external enemy so they can consolidate their power, and pork money to their space-rock-throwing lobbyist friends.

[55delta]

Okay, maybe I shouldn't be so dismissive of 'relativistic missiles', but using it as a general argument against space and space-travel strikes me as a more educated version of 'if we sail too far out to sea, we fall off the Earth.' No, that's not what it's about at all. First, when I say that it'll happen or it won't, I mean now and the near future. The thing is, we literal wouldn't be able to see it coming. So if some alien race were to find us and decide to wipe us out this way, there is nothing we can do. But, since I woke up this morning and was alive, I know it hasn't happened yet.

Not that humanity hasn't always been potentially threated by unstoppable destruction by something, like an asteroid. It's just now that we're at our most awareness of these things. And as a race that saw two sides threaten to destroy all life on Earth...and did not do so...I don't think there's any point worrying about living through continuous 'coin-flips'. Trying to live under a rock won't save you, it'll just make you feel safer.

Still, I suppose that given infinity, that there a very small chance that an alien race could beat the impossible odds of being paranoid and hostility xenophobic and also developing relativistic missiles. But we have some things in our favor. First, we're still far from developing relativistic vehicles, so if there is a way of detecting those, we can't be found yet. If we're afraid of relativistic missiles, then we should launch more Kepler space telescopes to find indications of planets and stars being inexplicably being destroyed. There's a lot of stars in space, so we'll need a big network of them. Then we need to detect the signs or effects of objects travelling at relativistic speeds. Not so that we can see one coming (we can't), but to try to figure out where such vehicles are being launched from, where they are going, and what happens to the destinations. But that's something I'm not sure is possible, even in theory. Instead, if we develop relativistic vehicles, we should sent a colony to another solar system almost as soon as we have the first vehicle. That way, some of humanity will still survive, and possible avenge against such rude neighbours. And that's all I have to say about that.

Now, back to the topic. Are there anymore business plans involving space?

[whiterafter]

I think most of you are way too far ahead of like, the rest of the human race. Launch costs have to drop dramatically for these ideas to even make it into the economy's peripherals. The Earth is incredibly rich in its own minerals and resources, and despite humanity's worst efforts, is still abounding with them in places much more quickly & cheaply accessed.

[juanml82]

You might want to re-phrase that. If 'why go to space' isn't the question, then you don't have one. And if you're scared of relativistic missiles, Then the question was never meant for you in the first place. Why are you even bothering to post? It'll happen or it won't and our current technology is enough to set them to launch as well. Although, in a different thread I would ask how any race so paranoid of potential vague threats ever makes relativistic missiles anyway? How have they not nuked themselves to oblivion with nuclear weapons first? Are they pulp-era super villains?

Yes, I agree that humans don't always do what's best for humanity in the long-term. But you see, human development rarely ever came about 'for the good of mankind' to begin with. Each inventor, each researcher had their own reasons for their part, some of which never even knew that they'd done anything more than just found an answer to a single question. I would love to just say that space is the reason itself to go there, but most people here agree that it isn't nearly a good enough reason. So we need better reasons. We must appeal to self-interest for small benefit of the whole if that's what it takes to create the whole in the first place. If we can sell whisky to rich snobs to get greater investment in space, how is that wrong? If we are selling to a market of the current six people on the ISS, is it not the start of a mining industry? People have travelled the length and breadth of this planet, on long and difficult journeys and at great personal risk, for lesser things which likely as not didn't exist. But their efforts helped map the world you live on. Should they not have done that? Would you rather not know? I've stuck to things that we know exist because we're all too educated to buy that the fountain of eternal youth is on Venus and I'd rather not just create more lies on the internet.

I'm not saying the space will ever be easy, or cheap, or very simple. What makes you think that it would need to be in the first place? You're unlikely to get there with that attitude. I want to know if the benefits are there, that the spirit that sent people out to the frontiers, where the maps said there were dragons, still has a place in humanity. If it doesn't, then what does it matter if the moon landing was faked? I have every reason to believe that it wasn't. But if we've no reason to send people out past LEO again, or even to LEO, then it would as well have been faked. If space needs to make money to get the ball rolling, then that's a step we should take. But I want to believe that humanity can go further, they just need a few good reasons. Got any?

You can replace "relativistic missiles" for any catastrophe that can make uninhabitable. Yes, there is a reason to colonize the solar system, the problem is about costs and incentives.

And past explorers, from Ogg the savannah dweller who crossed the Red Sea to the people who explored the south pole, they never had to overcome the astounding costs of space travel. And many of those explorers did it for profit. There was a market for people like Marco Polo or Columbus to go (or try to go) to China.

[Rune]

You can replace "relativistic missiles" for any catastrophe that can make uninhabitable. Yes, there is a reason to colonize the solar system, the problem is about costs and incentives.

And past explorers, from Ogg the savannah dweller who crossed the Red Sea to the people who explored the south pole, they never had to overcome the astounding costs of space travel. And many of those explorers did it for profit. There was a market for people like Marco Polo or Columbus to go (or try to go) to China.

There are also plenty of examples of forced migration through population, social, economic, or even climate pressures. And the cost is always relative to the prevailing economy, of course, crossing the Atlantic wasn't feasible before the age of sail, for example, and so it wasn't done. Said forced immigrants would be a market, tying this comment loosely with the thread topic.

Rune. Very loosely. I'll stop now. Sorry!

[55delta]

And past explorers, from Ogg the savannah dweller who crossed the Red Sea to the people who explored the south pole, they never had to overcome the astounding costs of space travel. And many of those explorers did it for profit. There was a market for people like Marco Polo or Columbus to go (or try to go) to China.

Yes, you are right. They never had to overcome the cost of space travel. They had to overcome the then great cost of sea travel. I find knowing some history can be very helpful. You see, ocean travel then was neither cheap, easy, or safe, like space travel now. And many explorers had to appeal to people of power and wealth to get their expeditions outfitted, like Christopher Columbus appealing to the Spanish crown for the ships and supplies for his famous voyage. Has the price risen? Yes. But we're done things like this before. I don't see any point on shying away from the matter on the basis of 'but it's more expensive.' I don't think we're run out of rich patrons. We seem to have just decided to wait for them to finance their own expeditions instead.

[Kibble]

When everybody lived in Africa, starting a service for transporting cargo across the USA would be extremely expensive and it would not make any profit. It wouldn't even make sense! But now the USA exists and people live here, and there are all sorts of profit-making organizations dedicated to the transportation of cargo, among countless other things.

Someday people will live in outer space, and it will be profitable to do things there! No crazy launch-cost-drops required!

[juanml82]

Yes, you are right. They never had to overcome the cost of space travel. They had to overcome the then great cost of sea travel. I find knowing some history can be very helpful. You see, ocean travel then was neither cheap, easy, or safe, like space travel now. And many explorers had to appeal to people of power and wealth to get their expeditions outfitted, like Christopher Columbus appealing to the Spanish crown for the ships and supplies for his famous voyage. Has the price risen? Yes. But we're done things like this before. I don't see any point on shying away from the matter on the basis of 'but it's more expensive.' I don't think we're run out of rich patrons. We seem to have just decided to wait for them to finance their own expeditions instead.

Ocean travel wasn't easy nor safe, but I'm not sold on expensive. At least, not as expensive as space travel is today, compared to the current economical output.

The Americas were colonized thousands of years ago by nomadic people who, in part, seemed to have arrived by boat. Thousands of years later, Columbus needed a rich patrons. The vikings, however, had beaten him for several hundred years.

When everybody lived in Africa, starting a service for transporting cargo across the USA would be extremely expensive and it would not make any profit. It wouldn't even make sense! But now the USA exists and people live here, and there are all sorts of profit-making organizations dedicated to the transportation of cargo, among countless other things.

Someday people will live in outer space, and it will be profitable to do things there! No crazy launch-cost-drops required!

For people to live in outer space you first need to drop launch costs and accomplish a host of technical breakthroughs.

[Nibb31]

You can't compare the colonization of space with the colonization of America.

- There were many reasons, economical, social, and cultural that pushed for the colonization of America. There are none for space.

- The environment was fairly hospitable in America, with promises of resources and wealth. There were dangers, but it was not instant-death as soon as anything went wrong. You still had air, water, and opportunities for food without relying on critical technology. This is not true for space.

- The people who went there hoped for a better life for themselves and their families. It simply is not possible for space.

You also can't compare the development of intercontinental transportation with space transportation.

- Before those methods of transportation were even developed, there was demand. Ever since the discovery of the Americas, there was a requirement for safe and fast travel. Sea and air travel evolved from that requirement because there were actual destinations that people wanted to get to. This is not true for space.

- People want to go to a destination because they have an interest there: goods to sell, people to meet, places to visit, family reunions, business meetings, etc... None of that is true for space because space is not a destination. Other than the ISS or the Moon, we have no destinations of interest in space, therefore no incentive to evolve safe and fast space travel.

[DBowman]

I tried to work out some 'size of market' for 'energy' and 'propellant in LEO' as products of space.

Propellant in LEO

Idea is use Luna ISRU to manufacture propellant to use LEO-GTO/GEO and station keeping => less to Earth launch.

1. Fuel is 0.4% of cost @ launch_cost of 12,000-18,000 USD / lb (http://thewannabescientist.com/why-are-rockets-so-expensive/)
   
2. In 2014 there were 20 GEO launches (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_launch_market_competition)
   
3. Assume Falcon 9 => 5-7 M USD @ launch_cost of 2500 USD / lb
   
4. => total launch market is 100 - 140 M USD per annum
   
5. Falcon 9 is 1/4 - 1/6 of cost at #1 by reuse
   
6. => fuel component rises to 1.6% - 2.6%
   
7. total propellant market is 1.6 - 3.64 M USD / annum
   
8. LEO-GEO is only a small portion of that
   

Energy

Idea is use orbital solar power to provide electricity, it could also replace lots of what is now oil/coal/gas via powering 'Hydrogen ecconomy'.

• 2012: 18,600 TWh electricity, 155,500 TWh total energy
  
• USA consumes 20% of world energy for 300 M people, about 1/20 of population, so 100% - 80% + 19 * 20% => 400% we'd have to 4 x energy consumption to bring everyone to 2012 USA levels
  
• => 80,000 TWh electricity, 624,000 TWh total
  
• USA about 12c per kWh => 120 USD MWh, 120K USD TWh
  
• => 2012 world market: 2.232 B USD electricity 19.395 B USD total energy
  
• => 2012 world market: everyone @ USA levels 9 B USD for electricity, 78 B USD total energy
  

[juanml82]

I tried to work out some 'size of market' for 'energy' and 'propellant in LEO' as products of space.

Propellant in LEO

Idea is use Luna ISRU to manufacture propellant to use LEO-GTO/GEO and station keeping => less to Earth launch.

1. Fuel is 0.4% of cost @ launch_cost of 12,000-18,000 USD / lb (http://thewannabescientist.com/why-are-rockets-so-expensive/)
   
2. In 2014 there were 20 GEO launches (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_launch_market_competition)
   
3. Assume Falcon 9 => 5-7 M USD @ launch_cost of 2500 USD / lb
   
4. => total launch market is 100 - 140 M USD per annum
   
5. Falcon 9 is 1/4 - 1/6 of cost at #1 by reuse
   
6. => fuel component rises to 1.6% - 2.6%
   
7. total propellant market is 1.6 - 3.64 M USD / annum
   
8. LEO-GEO is only a small portion of that
   

and fuel for use in orbit is xenon is more ion/vasimir engines are adopted, negating the posibility of mining it on the Moon

[tater]

I have an abstract lying around here someplace for a paper some guys did on ISRU for propellant, etc, where they compared Phobos/Deimos vs the lunar surface. Phobos or Deimos won, since it takes less energy to get to and fro than from the lunar surface. Another paper shows that lunar ISRU (unless you star talking about a fusion economy) basically can only offset landing costs. It is never economical to haul much to space from the moon.

[SargeRho]

and fuel for use in orbit is xenon is more ion/vasimir engines are adopted, negating the posibility of mining it on the Moon

You're forgetting things like colloidal ion engines (to be deployed on the LISA Pathfinder), and also the Cubesat Ambipolar Thruster, which runs on Water.

[Jett_Quasar]

Before we can have self-sufficient manned space colonies there needs to be an infrastructure and that starts with in-situ resource gathering. Fortunately there are already companies working on it, one of them is called Planetary Resources has started prospecting near-Earth asteroids for fuel. I've seen some presentations of their business model and technology development roadmap but the basic concept is outlined in the video below and shows how something as simple as an ISRU can open up the solar system to exploration and development.

JR

[juanml82]

You're forgetting things like colloidal ion engines (to be deployed on the LISA Pathfinder), and also the Cubesat Ambipolar Thruster, which runs on Water.

Oh, I didn't forget about them....

I simple don't even know what they are