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

[Kaos]

I think there is a sound economic reason for mars, but only in the very long run.

To construct a self-sustaining colony you have to pay a high price tag. But after that is done, the colony will grow on its own and you profit a very long time from it. Nearly regardless of how incredible expensive the construction of the colony is and how little they can sell back to earth (which will not be little in my opinion): In the very long run, it is an economical profit.

[sojourner]

1 hour ago, tater said:

Martian wine would end up being valuable simply because it was from Mars, frankly. Studies have shown that even wine experts cannot actually tell expensive wines from cheap wines, and if you tell people a wine is really expensive, they will like it better than the same wine given a lower price.

None the less, transportation costs are vastly too high to make those goods cost-effective as products. It's a novelty for the super rich, I don't see it being the major economic driver. Expensive wine on earth has exactly the same fixed costs as cheap wine, really. You could just as well send some barrels around the moon and back and sell "space wine."

Sadly I don't think there are any sound economic reasons for Mars.

All of the reasons you give are why it's not feasible now or anytime soon.  Which pretty much everyone in the thread has already acknowledged.  I'm talking about in the long run.  Eventually, if a Mars colony reaches a mature stage, the shipping infrastructure will reduce cost somewhat. Cheaper than shipping from Florida to California? No. But some goods will find a market even at high incurred shipping costs if the desire is there.

Edited January 16, 2016 by sojourner

[DBowman]

I think the only thing Mars has that the asteroids don't is:

• 'The Brand' - tourism, wine, stamps, currency notes, location shots, mystique, etc - not very compelling economically

If the asteroids were excluded then to get to LEO from Mars is 4.1 m/s from the moon it's 2.7 m/s - maybe more for Luna polar ice to correct the inclination (any one have real numbers for that) but to get to LEO from Earth is 9-10 m/s so for demand in LEO it's the best place to source:

• H2O
• CO2
• Hydrocarbons - plastics, RP1, ...

and maybe close to as good as Luna for everything else.

[tater]

Positing a mature Mars colony is already making assumptions, frankly. If there is no early economic motive, there is no early Mars colony to become mature, IMO. It's like talking about California wines---they'd not be a thing if there was no reason to come to North America in the first place---how many Antarctic wines are there? Why is there no mature colony there? Because it's not worth it to bother. I'd hazard that more people live on oceanic oil rigs than live on the entire Antarctic continent. This is a good analogy to asteroids vs Mars, frankly.

[fredinno]

14 hours ago, Scotius said:

"For SCIENCE!" And also as a conveniently close staging and supply base for the exploration of asteroid belt. On Earth many cities and ports began as trading posts, coal stations etc.

Yes, because a gravity well like Mars is a wonderful place to put a supply/staging base for asteroid mining.... Phobos is better for that.

8 hours ago, Kaos said:

In the beginning, construction of stuff on Mars would be more important, as a base there would be quite dependent on imports from earth. The sooner most of the things needed are constructed on Mars the cheaper the construction of a Mars colony would be.

Beyond that point: A lot of money is made by selling some kind of data. Be it films, computer programs or scientific results. I mean: Would you have refused to buy KSP, if it was developed by some company on Mars?

But there are also opportunities for selling material stuff: Delta-v from Mars to GEO is 7 km/s, delta-v from earth to GTO is 12 km/s. So transporting satellites, fuel or other stuff to GEO could earn them some bucks.

This topic has to be seen a bit from the financial point of few: The construction is expensive and has to be supported somehow from earth. Be it gouvernancial, rich people that want to see a Mars colony or some other source. As soon as the colony is big anough and can produce most of its own stuff, the need some internal economy system (I know there is disagreement how big such a colony has to be or whether this is possible at all, but if it is not possible there will be no colony in the long run and I try to answer what a colony could sell. I also would discuss whether it is possible, but not in this thread). For the daily live, people on Mars would use some Mars currency for which they buy stuff produced on Mars. Nevertheless there would be some exchange between Mars and Earth currency, be it because some people find it cool to own 25 Mars bucks or some people want to trade something and need the other currency. If people on Mars can build rockets and deliver stuff to Earth, they can earn Earth money, even if they sell stuff that can be produced easily on Earth. Then Earth bound production would be a lot less complicated for the same goods an more profitable. But if the marslings strongly desire Earth money for some Earth goods, they would do it nevertheless. So something will be exported on the long run from Mars to Earth. But then of course it would be something where they get the most money per effort. This is why I suspect the main export goods to be data and stuff for other locations in the solar system.

Sure this might work on the long run. But there is literally nothing to get a base started in the first place. At least the Moon has the advantage of being close, and you can mine pretty much anything from it due to its asteroid impacts. Mars has no advantage. If life was found there though, it might help, but that implies the money is available for a scientific base...

[Spaceception]

6 minutes ago, fredinno said:

Yes, because a gravity well like Mars is a wonderful place to put a supply/staging base for asteroid mining.... Phobos is better for that.

Don't forget Deimos!

[Kaos]

17 minutes ago, fredinno said:

...

Sure this might work on the long run. But there is literally nothing to get a base started in the first place. At least the Moon has the advantage of being close, and you can mine pretty much anything from it due to its asteroid impacts. Mars has no advantage. If life was found there though, it might help, but that implies the money is available for a scientific base...

That is true, someone has to hand over the money to start the colony. But I did not want to argue here, why I think a colony will be started, but what I belief it will export as soon as it has grown big enough.

[Scotius]

26 minutes ago, fredinno said:

Yes, because a gravity well like Mars is a wonderful place to put a supply/staging base for asteroid mining.... Phobos is better for that.

Quantity. There is plenty of water ice, other volatiles and building materials (iron) easily reachable on, or just under the surface of Mars. Put a nuclear reactor on the surface, add some chemistry equipment and you can melt ice into water. Then split water into hydrogen and oxygen. Then use hydrogen and CO2 to make methane for chemical rockets. Not to mention iron, silicon and who know what else you can find digging for ice. There is no guarantee one can find all that on every encountered asteroid.

[fredinno]

10 minutes ago, Scotius said:

Quantity. There is plenty of water ice, other volatiles and building materials (iron) easily reachable on, or just under the surface of Mars. Put a nuclear reactor on the surface, add some chemistry equipment and you can melt ice into water. Then split water into hydrogen and oxygen. Then use hydrogen and CO2 to make methane for chemical rockets. Not to mention iron, silicon and who know what else you can find digging for ice. There is no guarantee one can find all that on every encountered asteroid.

Nothing you can't find on the Moon, which has been bombarded with asteroids for 4 billion years.

[Spaceception]

3 minutes ago, fredinno said:

Nothing you can't find on the Moon, which has been bombarded with asteroids for 4 billion years.

Good point,

But there's a richer amount of water in the Asteroid belt, and perhaps in certain metals as well.

[fredinno]

3 minutes ago, Spaceception said:

Good point,

But there's a richer amount of water in the Asteroid belt, and perhaps in certain metals as well.

But not everywhere.

[Spaceception]

1 minute ago, fredinno said:

But not everywhere.

Yup, but the more mining colonies, the better, Lunar/NEO mining colonies/outposts for missions around the inner solar system, and Asteroid belt/Ceres colonies for outer solar system colonies/outposts and beyond.

[sojourner]

3 hours ago, tater said:

Positing a mature Mars colony is already making assumptions, frankly. If there is no early economic motive, there is no early Mars colony to become mature, IMO. It's like talking about California wines---they'd not be a thing if there was no reason to come to North America in the first place---how many Antarctic wines are there? Why is there no mature colony there? Because it's not worth it to bother. I'd hazard that more people live on oceanic oil rigs than live on the entire Antarctic continent. This is a good analogy to asteroids vs Mars, frankly.

Yes, this is all very true, but beyond the scope of the question in the OP.  There are other threads asking the question of where it makes more sense to build a colony.

[tater]

1 hour ago, sojourner said:

Yes, this is all very true, but beyond the scope of the question in the OP.  There are other threads asking the question of where it makes more sense to build a colony.

It's not beyond the scope at all. OP even goes to some length to show that there is little or no economic motive early on. Positing a mature colony without a rationale seems absurd to me---literally in Mars One territory of irrationality.

Maybe the mature colony grew out of the strong market for the space unicorns they start raising just after the phenomenal success of Mars One.  

Edited January 17, 2016 by tater

[Nuke]

one thing mars (or better, a moon base) would be better at exporting: space infrastructure. you could build large structures on low gravity build sites and move them into orbit with less expense (energy wise).

one big hold up for space colonization is availability of suitable power supplies. you might never see a 10 megawatt reactor launched from earth, at least not a fission reactor. so a big export might be drive stages for long duration space missions.

[sojourner]

2 hours ago, tater said:

It's not beyond the scope at all. OP even goes to some length to show that there is little or no economic motive early on. Positing a mature colony without a rationale seems absurd to me---literally in Mars One territory of irrationality.

Maybe the mature colony grew out of the strong market for the space unicorns they start raising just after the phenomenal success of Mars One.  

Well, we all await something constructive from you regarding the topic other than "there's no reason to go to mars".

[tater]

5 minutes ago, sojourner said:

Well, we all await something constructive from you regarding the topic other than "there's no reason to go to mars".

Space unicorns is it, sadly. I think deep space is infinitely superior. To offer something constructive, I think that I'd have to actually think there was a good, economic reason for colonization. I can possibly come up with reasons to colonize, but a trade economy with Earth isn't going to be one of them. Wanting there to be a reason isn't enough. 

[HebaruSan]

On 1/16/2016 at 11:45 PM, Robotengineer said:

The biggest economic boon, at least at first, would be entertainment. The whole colonization project could be streamed live*, or scripted to and turned into a reality tv show (I would hate to see the crowning achievement of our species be lowered to that level). Of course, after the first few years the novelty and awe would wear off and the money flow would start to wane.

Reality shows rely on dramatic personalities to generate conflict (with uber-troll producers egging them on, if "UnREAL" is to be believed) and heavy editing to create a narrative. Any space program recruiting program will be designed to generate as close to zero personality drama as possible; astronauts tend to be a pretty stable and capable (i.e., boring) bunch. So while everyone would probably watch the landing and keep up with subsequent progress reports in the media, a Mars base would be a poor source of minute-by-minute "entertainment" as such.

I agree that there's no money to be made, at least not yet. I could potentially see a less catastrophic version of @Nuke 's scenario, where instead of total environmental and economic collapse, we run out of one particular resource that happens to be available elsewhere but otherwise we manage to keep civilization going. Something that's very useful and an annoyance to do without but not disastrous. If the scarcity of that commodity drove the price of a cargo hold full of it above the cost of a round trip, then that industry would start contracting for launches. (OT for this thread: Of course, there's little reason for the destination to be Mars...)

Regarding non economical reasons to go, what about astronomy? The atmosphere is thinner, and unlike Hubble, a Mars telescope would have a crew nearby round the clock to operate it and perform maintenance. (Though again, if we can get life support working on Mars, we might as well put the same crew in orbit with Hubble itself.)

[tater]

An orbital telescope, or the far side of the Moon would be substantially superior to the martian surface. Astronomy isn't even on the table as far as Mars is concerned.

[Kaos]

5 hours ago, tater said:

It's not beyond the scope at all. OP even goes to some length to show that there is little or no economic motive early on. Positing a mature colony without a rationale seems absurd to me---literally in Mars One territory of irrationality.

Maybe the mature colony grew out of the strong market for the space unicorns they start raising just after the phenomenal success of Mars One.  

In that case I will post my reasons for expecting a Mars colony will be constructed eventually.

I belief a permanent base on Mars will grow into a colony eventually, as all the mechanisms to live from the land will be developed and brought there, as it is cheaper than the long transportation way. A permanent base will be erected: By some government for research purposes, international as a program like ISS, by some ultra rich person out of personal reasons. Perhaps because traveling into space will be cheaper (SpaceX, Skylon, ...) or because someone will decide to pay the bill. I consider it doable in the current NASA budget (I posted a length reason why I think it is possible in this budget some time ago). I think at least 10 countries are financial in a position to do so. Someone will start and other will do the same out of prestige reason and then no country will stop. Alternatively it will be an international effort.

I am sure that not everyone will agree with me here and I also know that I cannot predict the future and can not be completely sure that this will happen, but I strongly belief so, as I have arguments for every part. But discussing out that in full length is out of scope of this thread.

[Nibb31]

45 minutes ago, HebaruSan said:

Regarding non economical reasons to go, what about astronomy? The atmosphere is thinner, and unlike Hubble, a Mars telescope would have a crew nearby round the clock to operate it and perform maintenance. (Though again, if we can get life support working on Mars, we might as well put the same crew in orbit with Hubble itself.)

A Lagrange point is better for a telescope: no atmosphere, 360° field of view, and permanent communication with the ground with (relatively) low latency. If it had to be supported on ground, the far side of the Moon would be much easier than Mars.

[Kaos]

I am also not convinced about Mars telescopes. Dust storms are not the best friend of telescopes. I consider telescopes on Phobos and Deimos more likely. As well as on our Moon.

I also consider a Lagrange point a better place for operating a telescope. But I also consider it to be a worse place for build one, as it cannot be done with local resources.

[tater]

We could have gone to Mars a long time ago for a visit, but that is not a colony. If a colony were to be set up, it would by definition need to be mostly self-sufficient (note that the US colonies were not self-sufficient in everything for a long time. That said, they were trading fairly quickly with the Old World. That's just not plausible for Mars. There's nothing unique about Mars, and nothing that exists there that doesn't exist on Earth or asteroids that can be hauled to Earth orbit.

I think to argue for a trade economy with Mars you'd need to justify why it would be better than the Moon or an asteroid delivered to Earth orbit, and you need to include logistical costs. I'm not seeing any chance of this, it doesn't seem remotely plausible.

I'm not saying a permanent base/colony is not possible, I'm saying that a trade economy would not be a thing.

[Kaos]

7 minutes ago, tater said:

...

I'm not saying a permanent base/colony is not possible, I'm saying that a trade economy would not be a thing.

Then I misunderstood you, I thought you meant it is not possible.

I think, trade will be a big thing, but not the trade of stuff, only the trade of data. There will be trade of stuff as well, but very marginal in comparison to the total economy.

[Rakaydos]

On 1/16/2016 at 9:45 PM, Robotengineer said:

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

What value does an offsight backup service offer in terms of goods and services?

Nothing... if you're lucky. If not, it offers EVERYTHING. Everything left, anyway.