What would a Mars colony have to offer in the way of goods and services?

[fredinno]

6 hours ago, Finox said:

No, they really didn't have anything to sell in North America for decades.   I read about the Virginia colony trying to export all sorts of stuff like clapboard and sasparella root to try to make money for the colony.   Ultimately they found tobacco but it took decades for that to make a profit, and only for the southern colonies.   The Mid-Atlantic and New England generated their wealth through trade, mostly by selling common items like food, construction materials, naval goods and similar such mundane articles to the Caribbean.   Mars could do something similar with asteroid colonies as it would be far cheaper to lift common bulky goods like food and mining equipment from Mars then from Earth.   I guess our viewpoints are totally different here, I regard Platinum or something similar as a bonus to colonization while others seem to see it as a prerequisite.   As for why you would mine platinum on Mars as opposed to the asteroid belt... let me turn it around and ask why you wouldn't?   One doesn't have to be the lowest cost producer to make a profit.

I'm curious; do you regard the prospects of Mars colonization as impossible without an already existing business plan?   I really don't think one is needed, Mars won't need much in the way of imports (some semiconductors and medicines) to survive, that's why its so attractive.   

 

If you need a planetary surface to get stuff from, use the Moon or Ceres. 

Also, Mars itself still has a pretty significant gravity well. You might be able to be more self-sustaining on Mars, but it barely matters if it's that expensive to get to the surface anyways.

 

The thing is, lower cost DOES matter. Space is already expensive- taking things from more expensive areas is self-defeating.

 

The Virginia Colony was partially founded due to a shortage of wood in England. Things that are in short supply and required on Earth, like Rare Earths, can be more easily obtained elsewhere in Space (or even underwater).

[fredinno]

3 hours ago, tater said:

BTW, anyone serious about colonizing Mars should start off by buying a couple Bigelow BA 330s, tethering them, and spinning hem up to martian equivalent gravity, then putting people there for ISS long duration mission timespans. We have basically zero data on the long term consequences of living anywhere between 1g and ~0g. It's not certain people could live on the Moon for long periods without health consequences. If deterioration is extremely slow, it might not be a huge problem for people born on Earth, but people who were never on Earth in the first place, this could be a real issue.

So until we characterize a range of acceptable gravitational acceleration for human wellbeing, we cannot even accurately list candidate worlds. It might turn out that the best choice is in fact to fix Venus for such a venture (if 1/3g turns out to be profoundly bad for people). 

Meanwhile, space habs can be spun to provide what we know is sufficient for people to live.

1/3 G is thought to be the level where it is fine for humans:http://www.permanent.com/zero-gravity-effects-on-humans.html

So that is one disadvantage for the Moon. You might, however, be able to make a small centrifuge (like for Natilius -X) to mitigate most of those problems. But yeah, we need a artificial-G space station ASAP. 

14 minutes ago, Finox said:

I would refer you to Zubrin's "The case for Mars" to refute most of what you say, read it and let me know what you think.   The problems you layout are not as big as you think they are, I know things like agriculture and manufacturing are foreign to the majority of westerners who aren't involved in them on a daily basis.   However it is possible to harvest materiel's and make things without the full spectrum of modern technology.   Human's are creative creatures they can improvise with limited resources, its what we've done throughout our entire history as a species, why not on Mars?

I must ask if you think going to Mars for the sake of science is worthwhile?   I think what we can learn a great deal from studying another planet, isn't that reason enough to go there?   With what we spend maintaining bases in Antarctica, surely we can maintain a base on Mars for research purposes.   With Martian launch windows occurring about every 2 years, the incentive to produce as much as you can locally will be immense, you'll be surprised how creative people get in solving those problems.   It's not like a new Martian base or colony would be anything like what you're used to on Earth.   It would be a fairly spartan.

The thing is, you need a lot more than you think to make things (aside from fuel) on Mars- not to mention Antarctica needs a lot less fuel and money to get to. I actually think we could get mining down in Antarctica, if only it wasn't protected by international treaty until 2041. Even Greenland is looking like a good place to mine nowadays.

[Finox]

3 hours ago, Robotengineer said:

 

On the platinum issue, a large amount of platinum from space entering the market would crash the platinum market. You would want to get your platinum as cheaply as possible, so getting it from the asteroid belt makes more sense than getting it from Mars, unless Mars had something that would make it cheaper in the long run to do it there rather than at an asteroid.

The global market for platinum is around 200 tons per year.   You're not going to "crash" that market by introducing a few extra tons per year of supply.   Well to be fair, you could crash the platinum market if the products elasticity of demand is extremely inelastic, but I doubt platinum is that inelastic.   A product will be produced by a producer if the marginal cost of production is less than or equal to its price.   It doesn't matter whether or not a producer is the lowest cost producer, you make the product if you can make ANY money on it, simply to cover your fixed costs.

This is where I have to ask quite frankly what you know about economics?   I don't want to insult anyone but I'm not detecting much knowledge of the subject in this discussion.   Knowledge of economics is necessary to answer the core question of this thread: "What products would a Mars colony offer to Earth for export?"   The answer would be any product who's cost of production plus shipping is less than its sale price on Earth.   Robert Zubrin already did the math and figured out that anything with a value to weight ratio equal to or better than silver is exportable from Mars NOW, with CURRENT technology.

[gooddog15]

Rocks and sand for landscaping. 

To be serious though, it would probably be tourism and land. People love land, even if it's really expensive and located in a cold inhospitable desert. Everything like mining would make no sense with the great abundance of resource rich asteroids.

[Rakaydos]

Elon Musk is on record as wanting to colonize mars. He's a majority stockholder of an up-and-coming orbital launch provider, SpaceX.

He has the motive and the means. Any hardware he develops with mars capability will have secondary use closer to home. I feel he doesnt need to have an economic incentive to colonize mars- To put it cold-bloodedly as possible,  he just wants to open a new market. Setting up the colony is a loss leader for the profitable effort to supply them.

Edited January 25, 2016 by Rakaydos

[fredinno]

2 minutes ago, Finox said:

The global market for platinum is around 200 tons per year.   You're not going to "crash" that market by introducing a few extra tons per year of supply.   Well to be fair, you could crash the platinum market if the products elasticity of demand is extremely inelastic, but I doubt platinum is that inelastic.   A product will be produced by a producer if the marginal cost of production is less than or equal to its price.   It doesn't matter whether or not a producer is the lowest cost producer, you make the product if you can make ANY money on it, simply to cover your fixed costs.

This is where I have to ask quite frankly what you know about economics?   I don't want to insult anyone but I'm not detecting much knowledge of the subject in this discussion.   Knowledge of economics is necessary to answer the core question of this thread: "What products would a Mars colony offer to Earth for export?"   The answer would be any product who's cost of production plus shipping is less than its sale price on Earth.   Robert Zubrin already did the math and figured out that anything with a value to weight ratio equal to or better than silver is exportable from Mars NOW, with CURRENT technology.

For an economical mining business, you need a lot more than a few tons to justify the investment- and fixed cost is not enough. You need money to make a profit, and pay off the debt you got into tho make the system in the first place. I think Asteroid mining will lead to a revolution in materials by crashing the price (like Rare Earths, or Aluminium  in the early days). Sure, it might be exportable from Earth now, but economics comes into play here. It's also possible to mine oil shale, and make a profit. It's just so low that things like fracking and tar sands easily outcompete it.

 

 

[fredinno]

8 minutes ago, Rakaydos said:

Elon Musk is on record as wanting to colonize mars. He's a majority stockholder of an up-and-coming orbital launch provider, SpaceX.

He has the motive and the means. Any hardware he develops with mars capability will have secondary use closer to home. I feel he doesnt need to have an economic incentive to colonize mars- To put it cold-bloodedly as possible,  he just wants to open a new market. Setting up the colony is a loss leader for the profitable effort to supply them.

Hopefully it succeeds. If one person dies, though, he will have hell to pay. People have really low tolerance to manned space disasters, and the last two resulted in the Shuttle being grounded for 2 years, and major cutbacks to the ambition of theat program. Elon might be running a commerical company, but I doubt he'll get a free pass for that.

 

11 minutes ago, gooddog15 said:

Rocks and sand for landscaping. 

To be serious though, it would probably be tourism and land. People love land, even if it's really expensive and located in a cold inhospitable desert. Everything like mining would make no sense with the great abundance of resource rich asteroids.

Tourism would be great. Land on Mars, however, is perchlorate-laced. Until we find away to remove the perchlorate en masse, oceans,deserts, and polar regions are likely better places for those who want lots of land. Mars, however, does have a more Exploratory stigma to it.

I think it will first be penal/tourist colonies building here. 

[Finox]

1 hour ago, fredinno said:

If you need a planetary surface to get stuff from, use the Moon or Ceres. 

Also, Mars itself still has a pretty significant gravity well. You might be able to be more self-sustaining on Mars, but it barely matters if it's that expensive to get to the surface anyways...

...The Virginia Colony was partially founded due to a shortage of wood in England. Things that are in short supply and required on Earth, like Rare Earths, can be more easily obtained elsewhere in Space (or even underwater).

I'm not arguing we should go to Mars for Platinum, or Gold, or any such thing, just that they can be exported profitably after you get there if needed.   If you're looking for a reason to go to Mars that's another subject, frankly I think science is a good enough reason to start a Mars base, but this thread is about what Mars could offer once you're already there.

Also, the Virginia colony was founded largely to find silver and gold.   There are some amusing and quite desperate accounts of the initial colonists sending iron pyrite (or fools gold) back to England in the hope that it was the real thing.   The rest of the colonies economy took decades to develop and was not exactly planned in advance, they didn't know about growing tobacco before they started.   As a profit making venture the Virginia colony was a failure, especially when one factors in the time value of money.   The colony investors could have gotten a far better profit elsewhere.

1 hour ago, fredinno said:

The thing is, lower cost DOES matter. Space is already expensive- taking things from more expensive areas is self-defeating

Yes, but asteroid mining operations are less self sufficient than a Mars base.   So the best place from which to supply an asteroid mining operation is wherever its cheapest to launch from.   With 38% of the gravity and 1% of the atmosphere of Earth, Mars is clearly better to launch from.   It's cheaper to launch the heavy equipment for an asteroid mine from Mars then from Earth, significantly so if you do the math.   Again as I've been doing repeatedly in this thread, I recommend you read "The Case for Mars" by Robert Zubrin, he has a section on this topic and a chart showing how much easier it is to launch to the asteroid belt from Mars compared with Earth.

Edited January 25, 2016 by Finox

[tater]

37 minutes ago, fredinno said:

1/3 G is thought to be the level where it is fine for humans:http://www.permanent.com/zero-gravity-effects-on-humans.html

Yeah, the moon is far more troublesome. None the less, the idea that 1/3 is OK is just a guestimate. We need to determine if this is true experimentally.

22 minutes ago, Rakaydos said:

Elon Musk is on record as wanting to colonize mars. He's a majority stockholder of an up-and-coming orbital launch provider, SpaceX.

He has the motive and the means. Any hardware he develops with mars capability will have secondary use closer to home. I feel he doesnt need to have an economic incentive to colonize mars- To put it cold-bloodedly as possible,  he just wants to open a new market. Setting up the colony is a loss leader for the profitable effort to supply them.

He has A motive, and some means. He doesn't have pockets nearly as deep as Bezos, he cannot fund Mars colonization out of pocket. Not even close. That's the reason SpaceX and Blue Origin are so different in style. SpaceX needs to sell stuff to push forward.

[tater]

26 minutes ago, gooddog15 said:

To be serious though, it would probably be tourism and land. 

Tourism to Mars? As a primary economic driver? That's not even remotely plausible in the middle distant future, if at all. 

[gooddog15]

13 minutes ago, tater said:

Tourism to Mars? As a primary economic driver? That's not even remotely plausible in the middle distant future, if at all. 

Why not? Now, while the rocks and sand is cool to look at, I can understand why going there just to see said rocks and sand would not be a good reason to go there. But if there was a Stonehenge made of crashed landers and other works of art made by the crazy land loving martians, there would be an incentive to go.

 

I would also imagine that there would be a thriving Martian pet rock market. Why? because capitalism. 

Edited January 25, 2016 by gooddog15

[SargeRho]

For tourism to become a major thing, anywhere in the solar system, first we need a considerable presence in low earth orbit, or at one of the ML points. Otherwise, it just won't be economically viable.

Another thing that will be crucial would be, either a system wherein most people can work "from home", during the trip, or some sort of engine that can do the trip from Earth to Mars in a matter of days or weeks, or both.

Essentially, a trip to Mars must be brought down to the cost, and to the comfort level, of a cruise around the mediterranean sea.

Edited January 25, 2016 by SargeRho

[fredinno]

29 minutes ago, SargeRho said:

For tourism to become a major thing, anywhere in the solar system, first we need a considerable presence in low earth orbit, or at one of the ML points. Otherwise, it just won't be economically viable.

Another thing that will be crucial would be, either a system wherein most people can work "from home", during the trip, or some sort of engine that can do the trip from Earth to Mars in a matter of days or weeks, or both.

Essentially, a trip to Mars must be brought down to the cost, and to the comfort level, of a cruise around the mediterranean sea.

Which is probably asking for too much for within this century.

[SargeRho]

1 minute ago, fredinno said:

Which is probably asking for too much for within this century.

There's still a lot of century left in this century.

[tater]

1 hour ago, gooddog15 said:

Why not? Now, while the rocks and sand is cool to look at, I can understand why going there just to see said rocks and sand would not be a good reason to go there. But if there was a Stonehenge made of crashed landers and other works of art made by the crazy land loving martians, there would be an incentive to go.

I would also imagine that there would be a thriving Martian pet rock market. Why? because capitalism. 

 

I'd love to go to Mars. So would many people reading this. So would many people not reading this as well. So what? I'd like to take a couple years off and live on a private island in the South Pacific as well.  Guess what, renting the island is vastly more likely, and it's still not going to happen. The number of people willing to throw a couple hundred grand at suborbital, or orbital spaceflight is likely pretty reasonable once it is shown to be safe. The number willing to go to the Moon would be lower---and the cost higher---but might be worth it. Who has several hundred days to spend on a dangerous vacation? It makes the time/monetary investment of climbing Everest seem pretty trivial in comparison.

Even if you can get ridiculously short travel times so that it's not the utterly absurd notion it is in the foreseeable future, you need to demonstrate that it would be the driving force of the economy. Hawaii can have tourism as the principle industry. I don't see this being plausible for Mars (and saying that because THIS has a positive economic impact vs everything else having a negative one doesn't cut it. It needs to be enough to sustain the place.

[gooddog15]

19 minutes ago, tater said:

 

I'd love to go to Mars. So would many people reading this. So would many people not reading this as well. So what? I'd like to take a couple years off and live on a private island in the South Pacific as well.  Guess what, renting the island is vastly more likely, and it's still not going to happen. The number of people willing to throw a couple hundred grand at suborbital, or orbital spaceflight is likely pretty reasonable once it is shown to be safe. The number willing to go to the Moon would be lower---and the cost higher---but might be worth it. Who has several hundred days to spend on a dangerous vacation? It makes the time/monetary investment of climbing Everest seem pretty trivial in comparison.

Even if you can get ridiculously short travel times so that it's not the utterly absurd notion it is in the foreseeable future, you need to demonstrate that it would be the driving force of the economy. Hawaii can have tourism as the principle industry. I don't see this being plausible for Mars (and saying that because THIS has a positive economic impact vs everything else having a negative one doesn't cut it. It needs to be enough to sustain the place.

We can still dream of it happening in the near future, can't we?

 

Also on a less serious, off topic note, does anyone realize that martian pet rocks would probably be an actual product when the costs of flying to mars is mere peanuts? I already built a mockup: 

[tater]

Like science missions to Mars, Martian Pet Rocks would be vastly more cost effective if collected by robots.

I don't imagine martian tourism (other than perhaps the odd multibillionaire without a care in the world) will be a thing even within the lifespan of my small children.

[Nibb31]

4 hours ago, fredinno said:

1/3 G is thought to be the level where it is fine for humans:http://www.permanent.com/zero-gravity-effects-on-humans.html

We have no evidence at all about that. It might be 33%, it might be 10%, it might be 90%. We simply have no idea and not enough data points to extrapolate anything.

4 hours ago, fredinno said:

So that is one disadvantage for the Moon. You might, however, be able to make a small centrifuge (like for Natilius -X) to mitigate most of those problems. But yeah, we need a artificial-G space station ASAP. 

Not going to happen anytime soon. I think we'll see a Moon base before we see a human-sized centrifuge.

 

[fredinno]

54 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

We have no evidence at all about that. It might be 33%, it might be 10%, it might be 90%. We simply have no idea and not enough data points to extrapolate anything.

Not going to happen anytime soon. I think we'll see a Moon base before we see a human-sized centrifuge.

 

Why? A small centrifuge is easier than a moon base, and we already have centrifuges in Earth. And these are not supposed to be large, just large enough to let a human sit in (and maybe read for a hour or so every day).

[MatttheCzar]

I feel a moon colony is more feasable.  Less danger, cheaper shipping, same opportunites for "Pinot Lunar", etc.

[mikegarrison]

I imagine people would go in order to go. As in, to not stay here. It would probably be people who felt like life would be better for them there where the constraints are physical, compared to here where the constraints are political, religious, or economical.

Or in other words, "to make a new life for themselves".

Edited January 25, 2016 by mikegarrison

[Thor Wotansen]

I just read a chunk of the first chapter of "The Case for Mars" by Robert Zubrin, and I have to say he makes a lot of sense.  We have the tech, and an average of one heavy launch per year (heavy being around 100 tones) it really isn't that huge and overwhelming of  project cost wise.  The biggest obstacle to a Mars mission is public perception.

[tater]

10 hours ago, fredinno said:

Why? A small centrifuge is easier than a moon base, and we already have centrifuges in Earth. And these are not supposed to be large, just large enough to let a human sit in (and maybe read for a hour or so every day).

It becomes an issue with enough people there. What's the minimal size for such a device? Maybe a 4m diameter, a meter or two wide? Assume the hardware occupies a space that includes the circumscribed square cross-section box our wheel is within. 4x4x1.5m? 24m^3 needed just for centrifuges for every ~24 people. If you keep a normal 24 hour schedule, then you maybe only get to use this 16 hours else people have to get up at night to use it, so really every 16 people. That could totally work for a small base, but a colony?

[fredinno]

51 minutes ago, Thor Wotansen said:

I just read a chunk of the first chapter of "The Case for Mars" by Robert Zubrin, and I have to say he makes a lot of sense.  We have the tech, and an average of one heavy launch per year (heavy being around 100 tones) it really isn't that huge and overwhelming of  project cost wise.  The biggest obstacle to a Mars mission is public perception.

And politics. I can bet you $1 Billion in NASA money could likely be save if areas like Plum Brook where (at least mostly) demolished.

[fredinno]

55 minutes ago, tater said:

It becomes an issue with enough people there. What's the minimal size for such a device? Maybe a 4m diameter, a meter or two wide? Assume the hardware occupies a space that includes the circumscribed square cross-section box our wheel is within. 4x4x1.5m? 24m^3 needed just for centrifuges for every ~24 people. If you keep a normal 24 hour schedule, then you maybe only get to use this 16 hours else people have to get up at night to use it, so really every 16 people. That could totally work for a small base, but a colony?

A colony would have either a larger centrifuge, or maybe a lot of them. Also, night doesn't matter, which double the rate these can be used because the Lunar day is 15 days anyways. Sleeping would be coordinated so that people would work in shifts, like on Earth. Also, the centrifuge would be inflatable, reducing mass (though the gravity of the Moon might require a few structural reinforcements. Unfortunately, I could not find he mass for the Nautilius-X centrifuge.

1 hour ago, mikegarrison said:

I imagine people would go in order to go. As in, to not stay here. It would probably be people who felt like life would be better for them there where the constraints are physical, compared to here where the constraints are political, religious, or economical.

Or in other words, "to make a new life for themselves".

I would hope.