63 thoughts on “Clearing The Road To Mars”

  1. I would say the road to Mars is orbital depots.

    A road to Mars is orbital depots is one road, one can assume
    there is many roads. But I am saying the road and it’s a questionable
    assertion.
    And I would also say the road to the Moon is orbital depots.
    And one could say this idea is unproven by Apollo, ie, 12 people
    went to the lunar surface and we did have or use orbital depots.
    Of course going somewhere does not mean one travels on a road,
    and currently there is not road to the Moon.

    Let’s say don’t need orbital depots, instead let’s say what is required
    is planetary surface depots. And so the road to moon is depot on earth surface and depot on lunar surface. And again Apollo would lack the lunar surface depot, but if we had lunar surface depot, would we have a road to the Moon?
    Maybe or perhaps. It may not be economical and whatever, but if there was rocket fuel available at one location on lunar surface, one could say
    it could say it would provide direction. One wonder could consider using the depot on the Moon. Say at the lunar equator. And how much the rocket fuel cost and is the equator someplace on the moon that we want to go.
    From this one can see that a fuel depot on lunar surface, tends to direct you to a particular location on the Moon. In comparison if one had depot in lunar polar orbit, it’s not directing you to a particular spot on the Moon.
    In terms of commerce would say you want to direct a customer to a particular spot and perhaps even the customer is happier, someone has made that decision for them. But at least some customers would like more choices. And if one is exploring, then tend to need more options.
    The one way to Mars, is idea that one doesn’t need to worry about returning to Earth- and so one does need rocket fuel at Mars surface.
    And one say one way to Mars is a road to Mars.

    How about I say that for NASA the road to Mars is orbital depots.
    With the assumption that what NASA “wants” is to explore Mars, rather than put people on the Mars. Putting people on Mars might be a way to explore Mars. One could say NASA is essential evil or too stupid to talk about- and something like “we the People will go to Mars”. But I want to focus how NASA can explore Mars, of course I happy if people want to go to Mars, but I may or may not want involved with paying for it. Nor do I want rehash how NASA may be in the way of exploration or settlements in Space.
    I think orbital depots are the road to Mars for anyone, but I want to focus on a potential NASA Mars exploration program and I am saying that NASA needs a road, and Orbital depots are the only road that “works”- it’s the road to Mars.
    A alternative that such a road is the giant rocket theory. Or the road to Mars is having a big enough rocket. Just like the road to landing on the Moon with Apollo was to have a big enough rocket.
    I would say what a big enough rocket to explore Mars “could” achieve
    is sporadic visits to Mars AND allow sporadic visits to places other than Mars. Buying a car to drive to Seattle, and might go many times to Seattle, but one also go the Vegas with this car.
    A big enough rocket is sort of like an orbital depot at LEO- many options are possible. One could sell one or the other as better choice- which is not my point of mentioning, but rather it’s comparable, in sense one could go anywhere.
    Of course we have demonstration of what happens when go this direction of big enough rocket- SLS. In sunmmary, billions of dollars spent and it’s not flying. And we had Saturn V. Which was successful rocket program which was cancelled [for debatable or numerous reasons]. We also have the Delta IV heavy [and entire Delta-v family] which could terminated because it’s not affordable- it’s not cost effective and that was one reason Saturn V was ended {and so could make the Shuttle which suppose to be more cost effective than Saturn V]. And of course few are bragging about SLS being cost efficient- no one in the mood [not an paid hack] is trying to make this “hopeless” case. It’s we will like it once we have it, “argument”- it’s Obamacare. [But this is the Senate Launch System- though of course one can also blame the Senate for Obamacare]. One could say SLS and Obamacare
    works if we did not have a democracy. It’s predictable that shiny new will be slaughtered, once it’s apparent it has aged like good wine.
    The same argument certainly possible with orbital depot- perhaps some think it’s possible it’s worse in this regard.

    There are couple of things one can say about orbital depots {in LEO}
    One is we have not had one yet. Two people assumed that Saturn V would lead to having depots in the future. Or we could this was an assumption or almost inevitable and perhaps even too mundanely obvious. I think that best description of orbital depots- the inevitable
    that never happened.
    Both aren’t persuasive points- just a comment. And it seems it says something about politics or human nature.
    Now for attempt at a persuasive point. We could have many depots at the same time. LEO, Earth L-points, Mars orbit, wherever.
    A depot in LEO has a specific location to a launch inclination- or at least favors it, just depot on lunar surface is favorable to going to somewhere near that surface depot. Depots in other locations are far less specific. Or though not ideal, one could go to depot in lunar orbit, on the way to Mars. And Mars orbital depot is not very good way to get to Moon, might be ok way to get to Mercury. But generally lunar orbit goes anywhere to lunar surface and Mars orbit goes to anywhere
    on Mars surface [or it’s moons- though moons don’t require much rocket fuel to get to, though if wanted take say, 1000 tons from either of moons the rocket propellent it might be more useful].
    So the orbital depots not in LEO due to more choice are better for
    a broader amount of customers. And one could say they are more international. And more competitive as they less confined.
    One then compare Non LEO depots as being like the ISS. And one thing about ISS is it is still flying- or the longevity of ISS is probably
    related to it being international [though like the UN it is largely funded by the US].
    So not saying Depots have to be international- but they could. They can also be private. And they could be multinational private and/or multinational private and governmental.

    If your purpose with Mars is a stunt, depots aren’t necessarily the road.
    could a road, particularly if you idea of say India going to Mars.

    But it seems to me that to be serious about exploring Mars orbital depots are the road to Mars.

    1. Orbital depots are gas stations on the side of the road, making it possible for your modest car to travel beyond a single tank range from home.

      1. The differences should not be overlooked. When your car runs out of gas it stops.

        Fuel depots just make sense, but not the way people seem to envision them. More important is fuel transfer and standard connections.

        It may be, because of the wrong connotations being associated with them, we should stop referring to them as depots and instead refer to them as tankers because that is what they more appropriately are. That creates a different connotational problem, but at least gets us away from the idea they are stops on a path. In space, stopping is exactly the same as starting, unlike on earth where friction dominates.

    1. I’d rather see a more generic, even just the outline or silhouette of a core with two strap-on boosters.

      I think the road to Mars (and everywhere else) requires two key elements:
      1 – Bootstrapping – every time we place a new depot (or outpost, mining facility, solar power satellite, whatever), it should allow us to extend our capabilities and range so that we can place the next depot, outpost etc.
      2 – Decoupling mission from implementation – a propellant depot in orbit could be launched by any of several existing launch service providers. Propellant could be delivered to the depot by a great many more launch service providers on rockets of varying size. As long as there is some sort of common adapter to allow pumping propellant from one vessel to another in orbit, it doesn’t matter who is providing these commodities. What matters is that the task is done, not who does the task or what country they are from. This idea should extend to all aspects of the road to Mars (and everywhere else).

      This second point requires a free market for all sorts of things.: a free market for propellant in low earth orbit, different depots competing with each other on price paid to launch service providers and price charged to orbital customers; a free market for competing mining companies on the moon for production of propellant and other commodities; a free market for just about any step you’d care to name along the way.

    3. I think the idea is that SLS is blocking the road, so FH would better fit the illustration being shown in flight, going by SLS. With SLS shown with some big band-aids on it, or a crutch (Apollo on geritol).

    4. The point of the art is that the rocket isn’t a vehicle for the road. It’s a roadblock. I guess I need to work on the concept artistically.

        1. Put a little flagger guy out there wearing NASA gear with a stop sign. Don’t use a woman for the flagger.

      2. Draw it sticking nose-first in the highway, leaning over at an angle. Like a lawn dart. Maybe a little kink in the middle.

  4. –I think the road to Mars (and everywhere else) requires two key elements:
    1 – Bootstrapping – every time we place a new depot (or outpost, mining facility, solar power satellite, whatever), it should allow us to extend our capabilities and range so that we can place the next depot, outpost etc.
    2 – Decoupling mission from implementation – a propellant depot in orbit could be launched by any of several existing launch service providers. Propellant could be delivered to the depot by a great many more launch service providers on rockets of varying size. As long as there is some sort of common adapter to allow pumping propellant from one vessel to another in orbit, it doesn’t matter who is providing these commodities. What matters is that the task is done, not who does the task or what country they are from. This idea should extend to all aspects of the road to Mars (and everywhere else).–

    I think a depot needs to be used by NASA, but other that it can be a free market. Or I don’t expect or want the private sector to start depots.
    Likewise I think NASA needs to explore the Moon- or I would wait for the private sector to explore the Moon in order to start commercial lunar water mining. Unless the US will change it’s existing laws or some other country will change it’s laws to encourage the private sector to spend the money to explore the Moon.
    As far as depots being required to started by NASA, that NASA involvement in establishing the first depot could help a lot in terms standardization of docking and etc.
    I believe that private sector could also start the first depot in space, but sort similar to private sector exploration of the Moon- could be possibly
    realistic, if laws were changed to allow this to happen. And main thing regarding that, would laws related to having private spaceports.
    I think spaceport are connected to depots in LEO [and LEO should cheapest location to get depots to operational status].

    So assuming better laws are not passed, I think NASA needs to be in charge of establishing fuel depot at LEO. And perhaps it could eventually be privatize at some future date, or simply not designed the Depot to have a very long lifetime- so it could in future be replace by depot paid for from private investment.
    Or the focus on making a depot could as an experimental or various prototypes and with lessons learned develop the depot so becomes more operational.
    Or some some analysis regarding [I don’t have the ref] indicated a problem with Shuttle program is it should have generally regarded as experimental space vehicle and instead it manage as though it were an operational vehicle and think that same recommendation should followed in terms of a orbital depot. Or the effort isn’t make it “perfect, but instead the program should be learn how to make better depots.
    Or learn by doing it.
    And though bootstrapping usually refers to economic plan, as far action
    it’s same thing, you start small and improve the technology- rather trying to start big and expect everything to work as planned.
    Anyhow NASA should find if and where there is minable lunar water deposit, and once this surveyed, investors can decide whether they actually think the lunar water deposit are or could be minable.
    So NASA does not dawdle, it explores the Moon, then switches to exploring Mars. And much organization effort should expended to have smooth transition for the lunar to the Mars exploration. rather than some 2 or 4 year delay between them.
    And exploring the Moon would be test bed for Mars exploration- but not really about space vehicle, it more of operational aspect. One thing the moon exploration does as test bed is establish depots [will them being solely private or being supplied by various rocket launch companies. And how one explores. It’s largely test bed in terms of NASA organizational skill of putting all the pieces together in a efficient manner.

  5. We know what’s broken at NASA, but there is absolutely zero political will to change it. The studies about depots and small stations, etc., are out there. But the lust for a BFR, the aversion to risk, and the need to placate the political-industrial complex in TX, FL, AL, and UT have so completely broken NASA’s ability to do things that it’s basically hopeless.

    If there’s any progress, it will be done in spite of NASA, not with the assistance of NASA. SpaceX was nourished on crumbs that fell from the table. So perhaps a better study would be, “What can be done with, say, $500 million per year from entrepreneurs?”

    1. You say:
      > If there’s any progress, it will be done in spite of NASA, not with the assistance of NASA. SpaceX was nourished on crumbs that fell from the table.

      Your point is a bit fuzzy; I think you mean that large scale, useful programs aren’t going to come from NASA. And that NASA isn’t able to spend the vast majority of its money on useful hardware or programs. This is abundantly clear.

      However, SpaceX *has* been funded in large part by working with NASA. Which is one of the very rare examples of progress being made with a bit of the 10+ Billion dollar yearly NASA budget. Consequently, I think that there is some utility in attempting to leverage some NASA money toward useful projects. Perhaps someone might get NASA to fund a demonstration depot, or a variable gravity lab of some sort, or a significant orbital greenhouse for closed loop ECLSS research

        1. “The problem isn’t getting NASA to fund them, it’s getting Congress to.”

          No, it NASA. What NASA needs to do is try to get Congress to fund a low cost lunar exploration program.
          So what is *NOT* part of NASA program is ISRU or NASA getting into the Mining business. And also lunar base building is part of the program. If NASA is under the delusion this MUST be done, then NASA should imagine other space agencies will somehow manage to do it. At least the other space agencies are indicating an interest in the Moon.

          Next a large part of Lunar exploration should robotic and should related to establishing a depot in LEO and it have 2 or 3 years at most of manned exploration of the Moon.
          So NASA should inform Congress that NASA will have finished
          the lunar exploration by 2025. So not start at 2025, but be done by this date.
          And the purpose of program is to explore the Moon to find the best places to commercial mine lunar water.
          And NASA can tell Congress all about the importance of establishing new markets in space. And they tell NASA that they first want get depots so they at operation level so that first new market in space could be rocket fuel available at depots.
          They can mention their success with ISS resupply but also want a “real: market in space with many parties involved, rather NASA being the sole customer of the rocket fuel at the depots.

          And of course exploring the Moon purpose is allow commercial lunar water mining [and other types of lunar mining and etc] so Lunar exploration is to help start lunar water mining- and not too fussy about who does the actually mining, but has confidence the US private sector would be competitive in such enterprise. And being commercially successful will be challenging.
          NASA after exploring the Moon will then explore Mars with idea
          of also starting new markets in space- or seek to determine if human settlement on Mars could be viable in coming decades.

          The reason it’s NASA fault, is because a primary reason NASA exists is to help Congress be better informed about the space frontier [and PR jazz about how Apollo the first step made in this direction].

          1. “And also lunar base building is part of the program”
            I mean:
            And lunar base building is also *NOT* part of the program.

            [Mars base building is part of Mars exploration program- it’s needed, Mars is far away, Mars is large place, and it’s all about
            future human settlements].

          3. –When do you imagine that Congress gives a copulation about the space frontier?–

            Well the care about what NASA explores and can measured
            in sense because voted for NASA to explore the Moon and then explore Mars.
            And one could say they tend to dislike an agency which is not following the laws they bothered to pass.

            So basically they would prefer NASA do excellence job, and most of Congress not need desire tales of the agencies failures which reflects badly upon the duties of Congressional
            oversight of government agencies.
            I would guess that members of congress would quite happy if NASA following congressional direction and come back to Congress with a solution which aligns with the direction that Congress wishes them to take.

            The problem would be the Congress would tend to distrust any cost estimate that NASA provides for anything.
            So that part of it would need to clarified. Or one needs a study with through and professional evaluation which has all the boxes checked so topic isn’t solely about congressional distrust of NASA’s estimate of the low cost of the lunar exploration program.
            Some congressional member are not going to like the idea of commercial lunar water mining- on general principles. But it seems a majority of Congress will not hold such prejudices.

      2. >However, SpaceX *has* been funded in large part by working with NASA.

        Right, I mentioned the crumbs. 🙁

        But at least we got something good for the crumbs. It would be interesting to know if a lot more money would have made SpaceX’s progress significantly more rapid. My gut says maybe not; some things just take time to get done. But more money might’ve made a big difference for some of the other players, like Bigelow.

        1. Yeah, I’m with you, much more money would not accelerate SpaceX a significant amount. It would be nice if success of commercial cargo (and the presumed success of commercial crew) would drive the model to other parts of NASA.

          1. True, some things can’t be rushed. Nine women can’t get together and produce a baby in a month.

    2. “What can be done with, say, $500 million per year from entrepreneurs?”

      “What can be done” is the easy question. Private annual funding is a non starter. Commercial interests expect ROI that doesn’t take too many years. That’s just not going to happen initially even though the colonists have a lifetime to produce revenue to pay back the expense.

      A typical worker is worth a few million over their lifetime. A mars colonist would be worth more but it’s hard to say how much (no more than a quarter of what Mars One thinks IMHO.)

      Unless somebody like Musk does it, I don’t think the first colonists can be done privately (I really hate saying that.) Mars itself is an asset that pays for its own colonization many times over but not if people don’t have the attitude that makes it happen.

      That leaves NASA? $500m/yr is more than enough. That would be about 2.7% of $18.4b (scraps indeed.)

      We send cargo to a site on mars first. When we have enough we follow with crew. We can send 5 tons per year on that budget…

      $500m would buy 4 or 5 FH flights. The mars window being more than two years leaves us another $500m+ for payload (52 to 65 tons to mars orbit or 8 to 10 tons to the surface on landers that cost under $100m ea.) every launch window.

      While sending cargo we have at least a decade to decide how to send crew but worst case could send 2 crew per FH launch (10 crew per window mission.) The inventory sitting on the surface of mars helps keep focus during the crew planning stage and let’s everyone know the plan is firm.

      An ERV (or MAV/ERV) is an entirely separate issue. I expect it would be funded even if not used.

      1. Of course, instead of $100m per launch, they could do it on SLS/Red Dragon for $3b a pop… congress might like that?

    3. The part that’s hard to get across is what happens after colonists start building a life on mar and how does that affect expansion into the solar system?

      We’ve shown we can keep 3 to 6 people alive in a can circling the earth. That has had almost no impact on public perception with many seeing it as a total waste of money. A mars colony will be seen in an entirely different light. Mars is a real place to people where the vacuum of space is not. (I’m not counting us as people… face it, we’re weird.)

      Mars wealth transfer to earth will be electronic, it requires zero mass transfer. ‘This old house’ and ‘this old garden’ and others (Wil Wheaton hosts…) are revenue producing shows to start with. Note that Wil doesn’t have to go to mars to host any more than Nimoy had to go to space.

      If we can continue $500m per year then 10 colonists per mission can trickle in (more as costs come down) along with privately funded colonists (knowing the colonists already there will teach them how to survive.) This takes care of imports from earth of anything they haven’t started to produce ISRU and provides personal wealth to the incoming colonists.

      Those immigrants are going to need homes ready when they arrive. Existing colonists will build them for profit. That profit can be shared on earth by public ownership of stock.

      Obviously, more people on mars means more potential public corporations, but it will take time and depend on the immigration rate. Corporations will go public on mars for the exact same reason they do on earth, to finance growth.

      Meanwhile, mars becomes an anchor tenant for other infrastructure. If infrastructure in space makes sense w/o mars, it makes more sense with.

      Once there, land is going to be privately owned, instantly creating trillions of dollars of wealth once the public’s light bulbs begin to flash. Or the commies win and we all die.

  6. Standards, for things like fuel transfer, make so much sense you wonder why we keep screwing that up (like having different shaped CO2 cartridges in the LEM and command module.)

    But that’s just engineering. Engineers know how to do engineering. We don’t need to over think how to get to mars. Once we begin going to mars we will automatically begin to realize there are incrementally better ways and start implementing them. We need to look farther ahead than this.

    What is the social structure of people on mars going to be? Are they slaves or free people? Why do we always seem to want a socialist structure for them? Hasn’t history taught us anything?

    We need the humility to appreciate the limitations of planning.

    We need to prepare as well as we can, but understand that only by doing will we learn how to live on a new world, our first.

    The naysayers have an important part in this (even saving lives) but should not be allowed to freeze us into inaction.

    We will make mistakes and people will die because we are not gods knowing every possible outcome. All of which is just as true right here on earth, but that hasn’t stopped us from leaving the cave here.

  7. I’ve put the bulk of my comments back on your original Kickstarter thread. My comments here. I agree, ditch the SLS image, just a road to the red planet will suffice….

    Dave

  8. So does this road to Mars lead to settlement or will this be your version of “flags and bootprints”? I thought this year’s fight was going to be about getting “space exploration” out of our lexicon and replacing it with “space settlement”.

    I guess I’ll have to read the book to find out. 🙂

    1. Just to be clear, the project output will not be a recommended plan. It will simply be an example of a better, less wasteful and more effective way to get to Mars if that is actually one’s goal. I personally don’t care about Mars.

      1. You mean like Buzz Aldrin’s Cycler proposal? Or Zubrin’s Mars Direct?
        I can see a proposal based on near term commercial components being an interesting read. But I think there are plenty of proposals. The problem is systematically solving the problem.

      2. I personally don’t care about Mars.

        You will [sinister laugh.] You will [rubbing hands together.] Your pitiful faith in depots [evil glare] will not save you. Yes, grab your light saber and strike down my ‘just do it’ plan and feel the real power of the force [hysterical cackling.]

        1. LOL

          Well he can’t say it’s not obsession. But I agree I don’t care about
          Mars- other than it’s a potential market, and that’s important.

  9. Drop the entire road’s -perspective- some, so it isn’t edge-to-edge at the lower edge.

    Draw the SLS on it’s side, broken in two, but aligned as if it had pulled off the right side of the road. Add dollars lying everywhere … in flames and a little man waving white.

    On the -left- side of the road, right near the observer (lower left corner) is a Falcon tanker with a sign ‘LOX $1.99, Kero $.99’.

    Optional (depending on how the math plays out) Somewhere else on the left side, a milestone wherever seems most convenient, -labeled- whatever is most convenient. (Lagrange X? transfer orbit?) With another little tanker.

    And a small rocket well-up the road on the left.

    Yes, too involved for a cover. But it amused me, sorry.

  10. Rand, I’ll pledge $100 right now if you promise to title the first chapter: “What you think you know about Space is all wrong!”

    Dave

  11. You’re inadvertently making a great argument for why I should support SLS. I couldn’t have invented a better obstruction to stop the government from getting to Mars. The problem is not that government is slow, expensive and disinterested in changing – that’s what the government does. The problem is that no-one since MirCorp has had the least bit of interest in getting away from government influence. But hey, 15 years for SpaceX to go from $100M in Elon’s bank account to flying selected government employees – what a win!

    1. Trent,
      Really? Surely your attempted mocking of SpaceX isn’t genuine.

      It would be great if 100 million could buy a fusion interplanetary ship to go to Mars, but, well, — it can’t. Elon has engaged the marketplace (both NASA, and the private launch market) to leverage his 100 million into a profitable aerospace company worth way more than 100 million, and with the capabilities to get to space cheaper than before. Not too shabby.

      Come on, show just a little bit of enthusiasm.

      1. Enthusiasm isn’t a problem for Trent; he’s been blogging about space stuff for what, ten years now?

        The problem is the lack of private customers. However, that’s perfectly understandable. Right now, the market is government customers. That’s actually worth more than the money SpaceX is getting (although the money is itself necessary for them to expand).

        Having NASA and Malaysia and other government customers allows SpaceX to retire the risk for their launch system. It allows them to bring down the cost of launch insurance. That’s what is going to allow SpaceX to build a market of private customers.

      2. SpaceX could have flown commercial astronauts to orbit every year for the last five years. If they had that as a goal they could have done it even sooner – and before they won billions to fly tang and t-shirts that’s exactly what they were planning to do. The government doesn’t just slow down innovative companies like SpaceX, it convinces them that anything other than the paperwork-must-be-bigger-than-the-rocket philosophy is the only sensible way.

        But hey, don’t take my word for it. Any day now Elon will release his Mars Colonial Transport plans and the world will hail him as a genius and sing campfire songs and before you know it we’ll all be on Mars.. because NASA is totally going to let that happen.

        1. I’m amused by your spin on SpaceX history — and I don’t think you are wrong, just a bit melodramatic perhaps.

          But if SpaceX did forgo NASA’s money and glacial appetite for progress would they have been financially able to fly as often and write the paychecks? I don’t think so. NASA represents good money for the taking, but there are strings attached.

    2. Sometimes you’ve got to be pragmatic Trent. To get a settlement on mars, somehow we’ve got to get an annual commitment of funding. You know I’d rather not have government involvement, but my idea of letting mars pay for itself isn’t getting any traction.

      The good news is government is still clueless.

      1. …but my idea of letting mars pay for itself isn’t getting any traction.

        Your presentation at Space Access wasn’t well received? What kind of feedback did you get?

      2. I think if found liquid water [ground water] equal to Lake Tahoe volume and didn’t require much energy to pump it. And water was like Lake Tahoe and not salt water or poisoned with something. That would make difference in terms of Mars settlements.

  13. Rand,

    Good luck with your latest book. The last one was very interesting.

    However, if Trent volunteers to format the book in Kindle format this time (as he did last time) please take him up on the offer. The final product will be better for it.

      1. There was a problem with the Kindle version?

        Nothing terribly egregious. The table of contents is not in the menu but the annoying thing was the footnotes. Apparently, you had the footnotes in a footer at the bottom of the page. The Kindle format doesn’t have pages and footers so the footnotes were just inserted into the text block proper.

        I was amused when you turned down Trent’s offer because you wanted it done professionally. “Professionally” in the large majority of cases means “roboticly”. Few ebook editions are seen by human eyes before they go on sale. Trent would almost certainly have done a better job.

        1. I can assure you that it was not done by a robot, unless robots curse quite a bit about having to deal with how images came out. The same human eyes looked at it as the ones that looked at the print version.

          1. I can assure you that it was not done by a robot…

            And you (I presume you are referring to yourself) thought the footnote placement was fine?

      1. …but I don’t plan to make this a book.

        It doesn’t have to be a book. Many authors put stand alone short stories or magazine articles or essays on Amazon in Kindle format. There is no downside. The effort is minimal. Charge the $0.99 minimum and see how many will sell. A lot more people will find it on Amazon than will find it here. But make it available in Kindle format even if you make it a free download on your blog. You’ll get many more takers if you do.

Comments are closed.