I note that SpaceX has added another flight this year (Orbcomm OG2) in December after CRS 5 – at least according to spaceflightnow.
Quarters would be tight
Only in a marxist top down design. There is absolutely no reason for it.
Still reading. Lots of good stuff.
It is interesting to me that he doesn’t present the most obvious reason for expanding into space: wealth. A space-faring civilization is bound to be far wealthier than one that is earth-bound. There are tremendous amounts of resources out there, if we can just get to the point of getting to them easily.
Long-term survival is for sure important, but there’s a very good reason in the interim.
It may be shocking, but wealth isn’t actually Elon’s bag, other than how it can help him achieve his dreams.
It’d be interesting if this author could return to do a followup article in a year – after he’s had time to realize that he failed to ask anything new.
If 100,000 Earthlings went to Mars, each of these Earthling could need 1 ton of water for their journey
to Mars. And one could mine 100,000 tons of water on the Moon and ship it to Earth/Moon L-1.
Getting most of their water needs for trip to Mars at L-1 would better then getting it at LEO.
L-1 one could like the last stopping place before going across 1000 mile desert.
If water was sold at $500 per kg or 1 million dollars per ton, 100,000 tons gross value is 100 billion dollars.
Currently, the price of water at L-1 is about 10 times [or more] this amount and/or if starting lunar water one would probably need to charge about $5000 per kg [or more]. But if Musk lowers launch cost from Earth then the starting price one charge for water mined on the Moon and shipping to L-1 will also lower [The reason one has to charge 5000 per kg, is related to launch costs which affect the initial cost of landing all the stuff one needs in order to mine lunar water].
But what is more important than launch cost is the amount water [and rocket fuel] one can sell.
Or if Musk can lower earth launch by 1/10th, then on might be able to sell lunar water at L-1 for
1000 kg per kg [initially] but combining this volume of 100,000 tons and then one lower it to $100 per kg [so the 100,000 tons only has gross value of 10 billion].
So in free market one is not going to have Mars settlements and not be mining the Moon [assuming there is minable water at the lunar poles].
In addition with lunar water, one can make rocket fuel- mostly oxygen and the lunar LOX could cost about twice as much as the water [and lunar hydrogen about 8 times more than water].
So for breathing purposes, the Earthling going to Mars could also want to get some LOX at L-1 [and needs less LOX than water- so say, hundreds of lbs].
Now, could the Earthling want to buy rocket fuel at L-1? Let’s assume the person going to Mars can pay 1/2 million [or billion] dollars to go to Mars in 6 months. How much they pay to get to Mars in half the time [3 months]?
Would it be worth paying 4 times the seat price?
So first it will reduce the amount of water needed, And it will reduce the amount food and oxygen needed. [And from prospective of owner spacecraft, one can deliver more passengers per years.]
Second, a person going to Mars will need to pay for more things than the seat price- he going to need somewhere to live on Mars and all kinds of supplies shipped from Earth. Food and housing may only costs 100 times more than on Earth [as it’s locally made] but on going to want other things.
So the first year spend on Mars could cost as much as seat price.
So we talking about more money for the seat price, which could a fraction of total costs. Or it’s increase for the seat and carry on, but not the checked baggage.
Third, one might be making money on Mars, so doubtful one gets paid for more time traveled, and one getting 3 more months on Mars to do what you do.
And of course, one might simply not want to waste additional 3 months traveling to Mars.
Instead of buying 1 ton of water, one buys 2 tons of LOX, and 1/2 the water, oxygen, and food.
2 tons of rocket fuel is about 4 times the cost of the 1 ton of water at L-1.
So, I don’t think the moon will be commercially mined until the Moon is explored, but I think if NASA does a manned Mars program, one might see private exploration of the Moon, followed with commercial lunar water mining. Or if Musk starts sending people to Mars, than likewise one might see private exploration of the Moon. In both cases one see the capital risked for exploration due to having potential market for lunar water.
But what NASA should do is explore the moon to determine if and where there is commercially minable water, and after spending a few years doing this, NASA should do a crewed Mars exploration program, and during this Mars Program, the private sector or some governmental mix with private sector can decide whether it will invest in lunar water mining. If parties start mining the Moon, then this will lower the cost of a Mars program which may require decades of exploration.
In addition the lunar water mining and NASA Mars exploration will allow private interests [like Musk] to start settlement on Mars.
NASA has 2 major failures. One is not developing depots in space which would begin a market in space for rocket fuel. And second is not exploring to Moon to see if there is minable water, which could then supply rocket fuel to the rocket fuel market in space.
NASA should not be focused on making lunar bases or sending humans to Mars.
It seems that according to Musk, without US military assistance and without NASA commercial re-supply of ISS being available, SpaceX would have existed to exist. It turns out that ISS has had some value.
NASA should relatively cheap Lunar exploration program with the starting emphasis on robotic exploration with adds manned exploration- to find minable lunar water [and this also means find best locations on Moon to mine water]. But depots should be precursor to lunar exploration [and it’s largely a robotic operation] and while crews in on the Moon, NASA should again by start exploring Mars with robotics, which again followed up with crewed landing on Mars.
In terms of budget: depots: 10 billion [less than 5 years]; lunar exploration 40 billion [less than decade] ; and Mars 200 billion [for a few decades].
And also 5 billion dollars to put ISS in higher orbit and get ISS yearly cost so it optional yearly cost, rather than fix cost of 3 billion per year. So keep ISS, forever.
Main thing is go to the Moon, and don’t stay there.
Spending decades on the Moon will not lower costs- just as flying Shuttle for decades did not lower costs.
So in simple terms, do another Apollo [in the 21 century] and have exit plan. And going to Mars is a reasonable exit. And if not a long program than it can be sold as low cost, if plan is to spend 3 decades there, everyone rightful will assume it’s +200 billion project. And you get delusional NASA people being embarrassing. Though the downside is it will encourage SLS [though that is also why it’s 40 billion instead of a more reasonable cost].
If one wants 3 decades on the moon [which I favor], after commercial lunar mining begins, then you do all the other stuff- and it be about 1/10th of the cost [+20 billion]. And if there is not minable lunar water, forget about the Moon and shift the focus of getting minable water from asteroids {and perhaps including Mars moons}.
So, didn’t Isaac Asimov write a short story as part of a same-name anthology “The Martian Way”, where the folks on Mars (or rather the Asteroid Belt salvage ships) have an epiphany that the rings of Saturn are huge chunks of water ice, and they rather snarkily offer to share some of that water just as a demogogic faction on Earth is about to shut off their supply.
OK, Asimov’s yarn may come up a little short in the orbital mechanics department, but wouldn’t water from the right asteroids beat even getting it from the Moon? And isn’t Mars itself supposed to have subsurface ice, or was that disproven?
Some claim it is water ice others methane. Regardless there are volatiles in the poles. It looks like ice to me.
Spectrographic analysis hows hydrogen present and the color spectrum images show white stuff at the poles. It does not take a lot more to convince me.
I note that SpaceX has added another flight this year (Orbcomm OG2) in December after CRS 5 – at least according to spaceflightnow.
Quarters would be tight
Only in a marxist top down design. There is absolutely no reason for it.
Still reading. Lots of good stuff.
It is interesting to me that he doesn’t present the most obvious reason for expanding into space: wealth. A space-faring civilization is bound to be far wealthier than one that is earth-bound. There are tremendous amounts of resources out there, if we can just get to the point of getting to them easily.
Long-term survival is for sure important, but there’s a very good reason in the interim.
It may be shocking, but wealth isn’t actually Elon’s bag, other than how it can help him achieve his dreams.
It’d be interesting if this author could return to do a followup article in a year – after he’s had time to realize that he failed to ask anything new.
If 100,000 Earthlings went to Mars, each of these Earthling could need 1 ton of water for their journey
to Mars. And one could mine 100,000 tons of water on the Moon and ship it to Earth/Moon L-1.
Getting most of their water needs for trip to Mars at L-1 would better then getting it at LEO.
L-1 one could like the last stopping place before going across 1000 mile desert.
If water was sold at $500 per kg or 1 million dollars per ton, 100,000 tons gross value is 100 billion dollars.
Currently, the price of water at L-1 is about 10 times [or more] this amount and/or if starting lunar water one would probably need to charge about $5000 per kg [or more]. But if Musk lowers launch cost from Earth then the starting price one charge for water mined on the Moon and shipping to L-1 will also lower [The reason one has to charge 5000 per kg, is related to launch costs which affect the initial cost of landing all the stuff one needs in order to mine lunar water].
But what is more important than launch cost is the amount water [and rocket fuel] one can sell.
Or if Musk can lower earth launch by 1/10th, then on might be able to sell lunar water at L-1 for
1000 kg per kg [initially] but combining this volume of 100,000 tons and then one lower it to $100 per kg [so the 100,000 tons only has gross value of 10 billion].
So in free market one is not going to have Mars settlements and not be mining the Moon [assuming there is minable water at the lunar poles].
In addition with lunar water, one can make rocket fuel- mostly oxygen and the lunar LOX could cost about twice as much as the water [and lunar hydrogen about 8 times more than water].
So for breathing purposes, the Earthling going to Mars could also want to get some LOX at L-1 [and needs less LOX than water- so say, hundreds of lbs].
Now, could the Earthling want to buy rocket fuel at L-1? Let’s assume the person going to Mars can pay 1/2 million [or billion] dollars to go to Mars in 6 months. How much they pay to get to Mars in half the time [3 months]?
Would it be worth paying 4 times the seat price?
So first it will reduce the amount of water needed, And it will reduce the amount food and oxygen needed. [And from prospective of owner spacecraft, one can deliver more passengers per years.]
Second, a person going to Mars will need to pay for more things than the seat price- he going to need somewhere to live on Mars and all kinds of supplies shipped from Earth. Food and housing may only costs 100 times more than on Earth [as it’s locally made] but on going to want other things.
So the first year spend on Mars could cost as much as seat price.
So we talking about more money for the seat price, which could a fraction of total costs. Or it’s increase for the seat and carry on, but not the checked baggage.
Third, one might be making money on Mars, so doubtful one gets paid for more time traveled, and one getting 3 more months on Mars to do what you do.
And of course, one might simply not want to waste additional 3 months traveling to Mars.
Instead of buying 1 ton of water, one buys 2 tons of LOX, and 1/2 the water, oxygen, and food.
2 tons of rocket fuel is about 4 times the cost of the 1 ton of water at L-1.
So, I don’t think the moon will be commercially mined until the Moon is explored, but I think if NASA does a manned Mars program, one might see private exploration of the Moon, followed with commercial lunar water mining. Or if Musk starts sending people to Mars, than likewise one might see private exploration of the Moon. In both cases one see the capital risked for exploration due to having potential market for lunar water.
But what NASA should do is explore the moon to determine if and where there is commercially minable water, and after spending a few years doing this, NASA should do a crewed Mars exploration program, and during this Mars Program, the private sector or some governmental mix with private sector can decide whether it will invest in lunar water mining. If parties start mining the Moon, then this will lower the cost of a Mars program which may require decades of exploration.
In addition the lunar water mining and NASA Mars exploration will allow private interests [like Musk] to start settlement on Mars.
NASA has 2 major failures. One is not developing depots in space which would begin a market in space for rocket fuel. And second is not exploring to Moon to see if there is minable water, which could then supply rocket fuel to the rocket fuel market in space.
NASA should not be focused on making lunar bases or sending humans to Mars.
It seems that according to Musk, without US military assistance and without NASA commercial re-supply of ISS being available, SpaceX would have existed to exist. It turns out that ISS has had some value.
NASA should relatively cheap Lunar exploration program with the starting emphasis on robotic exploration with adds manned exploration- to find minable lunar water [and this also means find best locations on Moon to mine water]. But depots should be precursor to lunar exploration [and it’s largely a robotic operation] and while crews in on the Moon, NASA should again by start exploring Mars with robotics, which again followed up with crewed landing on Mars.
In terms of budget: depots: 10 billion [less than 5 years]; lunar exploration 40 billion [less than decade] ; and Mars 200 billion [for a few decades].
And also 5 billion dollars to put ISS in higher orbit and get ISS yearly cost so it optional yearly cost, rather than fix cost of 3 billion per year. So keep ISS, forever.
Main thing is go to the Moon, and don’t stay there.
Spending decades on the Moon will not lower costs- just as flying Shuttle for decades did not lower costs.
So in simple terms, do another Apollo [in the 21 century] and have exit plan. And going to Mars is a reasonable exit. And if not a long program than it can be sold as low cost, if plan is to spend 3 decades there, everyone rightful will assume it’s +200 billion project. And you get delusional NASA people being embarrassing. Though the downside is it will encourage SLS [though that is also why it’s 40 billion instead of a more reasonable cost].
If one wants 3 decades on the moon [which I favor], after commercial lunar mining begins, then you do all the other stuff- and it be about 1/10th of the cost [+20 billion]. And if there is not minable lunar water, forget about the Moon and shift the focus of getting minable water from asteroids {and perhaps including Mars moons}.
So, didn’t Isaac Asimov write a short story as part of a same-name anthology “The Martian Way”, where the folks on Mars (or rather the Asteroid Belt salvage ships) have an epiphany that the rings of Saturn are huge chunks of water ice, and they rather snarkily offer to share some of that water just as a demogogic faction on Earth is about to shut off their supply.
OK, Asimov’s yarn may come up a little short in the orbital mechanics department, but wouldn’t water from the right asteroids beat even getting it from the Moon? And isn’t Mars itself supposed to have subsurface ice, or was that disproven?
Some claim it is water ice others methane. Regardless there are volatiles in the poles. It looks like ice to me.
Spectrographic analysis hows hydrogen present and the color spectrum images show white stuff at the poles. It does not take a lot more to convince me.