22 thoughts on “To Mars Via The Moon”

  1. I didn’t listen to whole thing.
    But generally I think it’s good. Maybe I will listen to rest later.
    But I don’t think NASA should do a lunar base- even with commercial partnership.
    Instead NASA should focus on Lunar exploration, and lunar exploration should focused on finding minable lunar water.

    And the a major part of lunar exploration is related to minable lunar water in sense that NASA exploration uses orbital depots.
    Once orbital depots reach operational status [by using it for Lunar exploration] this technology would also be useful for Mars exploration and commercial water mining. And also related to commercial satellite operations, and asteroid mining.

    And NASA does not wait or is dependent on commercial Lunar water mining. And it’s possible other countries might focus on lunar bases, once NASA has explored the moon to determine where and if lunar water is minable. And if like commerical lunar mining, if other countries have lunar bases, this also provides political support for the decades of exploration needed to determine if and where human settlements could be on Mars.

  2. There is absolutely no plan that goes to mars via the moon. Instead, people that simply want to go to the moon use the idea hoping by repeating it often enough everybody will agree. Thereby delaying any mars mission which we could easily accomplish in less than a decade from now.

    For example, lunar water for mars fuel. Has anybody, anywhere, any time put together a time and cost estimate of putting water in orbit and turning it into fuel?

    1. The moon is a far better first destination. And yes, many of us have figured out the effects of using Lunar fuel. A fast transit to Mars practically demands it if using chemical rockets.

      1. The moon is a far better first destination

        Of course it was John, that’s why we did it. We should have continued which is to say I support we continue now… but not by making it a prerequisite for mars which it clearly is not.

        We could easily do both for much less than NASA’s human part of it’s $18b annual budget. Most readers of this site, chosen at random, could probably do a better job of it.

        1. For example John, you personally could put a base on both the moon and mars for just $18b, not annually, just $18b once.

          The problem is not money (from that perspective.)

          1. Ken,

            There are several problems with your scenarios.

            First is the idea of skipping all the possibilities that are nearer than Mars. “Yes sir, in this year of our lord 615, we are skipping the settlement of Ireland because it’s just an island and our first Atlantic voyage is to conquer the Americas.” A thriving economy is cislunar space enables settlement of Mars and many other places, while settlement of Mars, even if successful, enables nothing.

            Your ship architecture makes one think of The Nina, The Pinta, and The Titanic. IOW, I haven’t seen anyone with knowledge of the industry endorse your plan.

            Your land values on Mars are fiat values similar to that of currency. Fiat value depends on widespread confidence in the value of the object. “Backed by the full faith and confidence of Ken Anthony” doesn’t quite inspire the kind of confidence needed to raise billions. Many of the unimproved building lots with readily available water sold in Florida a century ago are still under water and alligators.

            And the Highlander syndrome of “there can be only one”. Chase your dreams, but remember that they are not shared by all.

          2. settlement of Mars, even if successful, enables nothing.

            You know you don’t believe that John, but I feel ya. Settlement of mars successfully would include a steady stream of immigrants with all the sundry services that implies such as rocket fuel from moon water or methane from mars.

            “Backed by the full faith and confidence of Ken Anthony” doesn’t quite inspire the kind of confidence needed to raise billions.

            No? I’m shocked. …but then, I’m not really asking for that, am I? It’s not really my idea at all, but a variation of the Space Settlement Initiative.

            Mars land as a fiat value is an interesting idea. Thanks for giving me that. John, you are an inspiration and I will sincerely always wish you well. You have always giving me cheer (which after a month in a hospital bed is no fiat value.)

          3. Ken,

            –There are several problems with your scenarios.

            First is the idea of skipping all the possibilities that are nearer than Mars. “Yes sir, in this year of our lord 615, we are skipping the settlement of Ireland because it’s just an island and our first Atlantic voyage is to conquer the Americas.” A thriving economy is cislunar space enables settlement of Mars and many other places, while settlement of Mars, even if successful, enables nothing.–

            I think settlements of mars would enable many things. The problem is getting settlements on Mars. Or settlements anywhere is space.
            I don’t think you will get settlement on the moon any time soon- unless you count oil platforms or bases in Antactica as settlements. If you do, then we already have settlement in space, which is called ISS.

            Could a base on the moon enable more than what ISS has enabled [which is nothing]? Probably. Would merely bases on Mars do more than a lunar base? Probably not.
            But I would say a base is not a settlement.
            The reason you would want a base on Mars is to explore Mars, and it depends on what one is exploring that determining whether a base could enable anything.
            I would say that ISS at this late date could yet enable something, though what doing is not very promising. So someday it’s even possible that ISS could become part of settlement in space- rather than a station/base. I don’t how, but were ISS to become some part of settlement, that would enable things.
            A problem is that making a settlement would be too expensive for any government to do- as would making any town on Earth. Government can make pokemon villages, fake settlement which are temporary- as can Hollywood.
            So there lots of bases in antaractic and they are “doing science” though if they cost 100 times more than they do- then they would probably be terminated. And the continued existence is probably mostly due to them flying under the radar. One could also say that were there actual settlement in Antarctica, at least a few of the bases would closed down- because they are bases and bases are closed, whereas towns are not subjected to being closed down by governmental funding decisions.
            Along same lines, if you had commercial lunar water mining, this would not be terminated by governmental budget concerns, but would terminated if they no longer were profitable. Just as deep water oil rig with hundred people living there would be terminated if it was not profitable.
            Now, lunar mining might create a community, the community might be solely dependent on the continued presence of the lunar water mining, or perhaps that collective activity could continue were to mining were to stop- particularly if say it were replaced by some other technological means of getting people to and from the area. So that could be called a settlement even though it might only be mostly comprised of various governmental bases clustered in the region. But were the same buildings/activity controlled [funded] by one government or one corporation- then become more like a base- a big base [and subjected to whims of budgetary bureaucrats- or it can be terminated].. So settlements end when all people at settlement decide to leave, and bases depend upon other people making such a decision.
            So if you had actual settlements on Mars, such settlements may go on for centuries. And such a thing were it possible indicates something significant and profound is happening and whatever this *is*, it seems there is no reasons it should limited to just Mars.

            So mars settlement would have significant impact, but question is how to get to point of having Mars settlement [or settlements anywhere in space].
            And I would say that were there well which one get abundant water from, such location could a place where one could have settlement. Or real estate is location, location, location.
            And area with abundant source of water would be location.
            Or broadly speaking the moon has billions of tonnes of water and Mars has trillions of tons, and this is major factor in regards to having a settlement. Or at least in regards to starting a settlement.
            But it’s possible that the trillions of tons of water is unusable [or not minable]. Such details are needed to be known, so one thing NASA Mars exploration should do is map out where there is most easily accessible Mars water and a “site” where trillions of tons of water is easily available would be important find, in terms of future Mars settlements.
            With the Moon quantity isn’t as important, 10,000 tons of minable water could be more significant/important than 1 million tons.

    2. Have you been paying completely no attention to what’s been happening in the past few months?

      Sorry, I’m sure the answer is no, because you can’t because of your Mars monomania.

      1. I should clarify. When I say plan, I’m not speaking generically which is what advocates are; which is what I’m denouncing. I’m speaking of a specific plan with costs attached. If anyone knows of one, I’m very interested. That’s my peculiar monomania.

        I’m not against going to the moon or anywhere else. Perhaps focusing on my ‘mania’ has lead some to miss this truth. I just don’t want it used as an excuse to delay or not go to mars. I understand that others might not see it as I do, but settling mars will change humanity for the better in ways ‘exploring’ never will.

        WW1 started with a single shot. Russia in Syria and Hillary’s server are much more serious events. Non-sequitur? No. Events matter. Elect a feckless president and 7 years later we are at the brink. You saw it. Would you not have had others listen?

        Who knows the future of humanity if we sit in the cradle for another 50 years… studying rather than doing. You think it can’t happen? It already has, but have we paid attention beyond moaning about the lack of achievement since Sputnik? (I’m very well aware that things are changing now. Don’t assume otherwise. My mania is far ranging, including reading this site almost from it’s start.)

        We all ‘know’ lunar water could open up the solar system, but it’s not that simple is it? It involves a very costly chain of events with equipment that mostly has not even been outlined; which is far from an actual plan.

        Elements of a plan may be pointed to; this would not be an answer to my challenge. Show me a real plan with time and costs. I’d be ecstatic to be wrong.

        1. We all ‘know’ lunar water could open up the solar system, but it’s not that simple is it? It involves a very costly chain of events with equipment that mostly has not even been outlined; which is far from an actual plan.

          Let me see if I follow this…

          The man who wants to colonize Mars by paying for everything with deeds to Mars thinks that propellant from lunar water is unrealistic.

          Do I have that right?

          1. I would not say unrealistic, but costly more in time and benefits to humanity not necessarily in terms of money.

            I note Jim, you do not deny the implied assertion of the quote.

          2. Ken, you’re like the Harry Potter fan who thinks Lord of the Rings fans will believe anything.

            All Mars schemes are unrealistic. The costs are stupendous, the benefits nebulous. But some are better than others.

  3. **ken anthony-
    For example, lunar water for mars fuel. Has anybody, anywhere, any time put together a time and cost estimate of putting water in orbit and turning it into fuel?
    john hare-
    The moon is a far better first destination. And yes, many of us have figured out the effects of using Lunar fuel. A fast transit to Mars practically dem*ands it if using chemical rockets.**

    The lunar water one mines doesn’t have enough demand from just a Mars exploration program.
    And fast transit to Mars doesn’t need lunar water to be mined.

    One will sell lunar rocket fuel at high orbit, near the price that it is worth compared to the cost of shipping it from Earth.
    And one *could* sell lunar rocket fuel at lunar surface around the same price and one can ship it from Earth. Both because the price of rocket fuel is dependent upon competitive market.

    In order to sell lunar rocket fuel at lunar orbit [or somewhere in High Earth orbit] IF one has competitive market [which I suggest is best approach] then lunar rocket fuel will be far cheaper at lunar surface, then whatever price one could sell at, if shipped from Earth. Because it has to be cheap enough for rocket fuel to be shipped to lunar orbit, to be about the same price as cost of ship it from Earth.

    Or one *has to* sell lunar water at lunar surface for about $500 per lb or about $1000 per kg. Or one can’t sell it much cheaper then this, nor sell it for much more this. Or you will not be able to sell lunar water at lunar surface for say 5000 per lb nor for say $100 per lb.
    One could sell lunar water for $100 per lb, if the cost to mine is cheap enough AND if there enough market for it. Or if you can lower the cost of shipping it from Lunar surface- some magical way have having some mag lev or mass driver which doesn’t use rocket fuel to ship rocket fuel.

    Now if you want fake the numbers with government subsidies- you pick any price of water you want. Or business set any price which beyond cost [similar thing as government subsidy] Or restaurant can give you free water, assuming customers are buying something else which allows one to give something else away.
    And in same way a business could charge higher price for rocket fuel at lunar surface as compared to selling at lunar orbit- but it’s a free market, or true value of rocket fuel made one the moon should cheaper because it’s cost money to ship it to lunar orbit [or anywhere in Earth high orbit]. Or for lunar water miner, they will sell lunar water cheaper, if there is enough volume which will be bought- but for say 100 tons of water, roughly it should same no matter where or how it’s used.

    Anyways, let’s say lunar water is very low cost- at the impossible price [in the near term] of $100 per lb or $200,000 per ton.
    So 1000 tons is 200 million dollar.
    And let’s also pick low cost to make it into rocket fuel, $100 per lb of water split.
    So 1000 tons of rocket fuel for 400 million.
    Now you have additional cost- a depot, and the rocket which lifts it to lunar orbit.
    At this point in time, no one has ever operated a depot. Nor is there a single rocket which could lift 1000 tons off the Moon- or spacecraft which lift 20 tons payload, 50 times. Or paying only say 1/2 billion dollar for something which could lift 1000 tons off surface surface is unreasonably cheap.
    So roughly have 400 + 1/2 billion, and say 100 million for 1000 tons of lunar rocket fuel shipped to lunar orbit. Or series of impossibilities.
    Now how much would cost if NASA instead buys rocket fuel shipped from Earth- 1000 tons at EML-1?
    There is a lot of unknowns, but any rocket company could base their business model upon such contract. Or in sense it’s worth billions of dollars to get such contract.
    So I mean worth billions of dollars in sense one could deliver the 1000 tons “at cost” [make no money from it- break even- and it’s worth billions of dollars to that company. Because one could prove the rocket works [well] for delivering other payload.
    Anyways it’s about 50 Falcon Heavy launches- or about 5 billion.

    And in terms of NASA exploration program, I would say it’s worth about 10 billion dollars to get crew to Mars fast. Or the rest of program will cost more than 100 billion.
    Or said differently, it’s going to cost NASA about 10 billion to send crew slow, and may cost additional 5 billion to send them fast- assuming rocket is lifted from Earth. Say we talking about first decade of sending crew to mars- or +3 trips or +9 crew sent.

    Now, I think NASA should spend about 40 billion exploring the Moon.
    And one think, well 40 billion worth of fuel would do a lot of fast Mars.
    But this is unrealistic way to look at it.
    The point is NASA should do things the lower the cost using the space environment.
    So NASA should lower the cost of Mars settlements. I don’t think there is another good reason to explore Mars unless it’s about the possibility of Mars settlements. Finding alien life on Mars isn’t worth it- nor does sending crew to mars make much sense in terms of the goal of finding alien life.
    So NASA lower the cost by determine how and where one could have future Mars settlement.
    So NASA not going to be in charge of transporting people to Mars so they can live there- that’s hopeless in terms of lowering costs.
    Nor could NASA lower the cost by mining lunar water- it’s the same deal. But NASA can lower the costs of commercial lunar mining by exploring the Moon. Or before would could hope to do any commercial lunar mining, one needs to first spend money to explore the Moon- and spending billions to find out if one do something profitable- doesn’t work. You would need a billionaire who would essentially be donating billions of dollars for the cause.

    So for Mars exploration, NASA effort should be towards developing a market for rocket fuel in space. And such market includes rocket fuel shipped from Earth.
    A market of rocket fuel in space which is shipped from Earth- helps commercial lunar water mining- developing such market from scratch, would quite difficult thing to do- it’s another barrier to commercial lunar water mining.

    Anyhow what important market in terms of commercial lunar water mining is sending people to the Moon. If you had rocket fuel available at lunar surface, one lower cost of lunar tourist going to the Moon.
    Another aspect would returning lunar samples.
    The problem is lack of market. The solution to lack of market of rocket fuel, is to ship rocket fuel to lunar orbit. Having lunar rocket fuel in lunar orbit, allows one to sell more rocket fuel to lunar tourists. And allow re-usability of lunar landers.
    From such things, one expands the market to providing lunar water or LOX to High earth orbit for Mars destinations. And provide water and LOX to Mars orbit, for Mars crew return.
    So in terms of commercial lunar water mining, one starts by selling lunar rocket fuel at lunar surface and [perhaps rapidly] start selling lunar rocket fuel at low lunar orbit [only doing it to increase market share].
    So it’s possible that within say 2 years of lunar water mining- you don’t want or need to sell stuff to NASA exploration Mars- because you have to first ramp up the production to justify it, and it essentially will require a lower price/cost of lunar water [and rocket fuel].
    There could different ways to be it, but my point is that in early stages, it might not make economic sense to sell rocket fuel to NASA for NASA mars exploration. But it has value in terms of future value of lunar water mining business.

    1. There [are] a lot of unknowns

      Yes. I believe I’m saying that.

      …it’s about 50 Falcon Heavy launches- or about 5 billion.

      Let’s assume that’s a good estimate and takes about ten years. During those ten years suppose that did not interfere with sending 20 FH supplies to a mars base site (is that a good supposition?)

      Now we’re ready to send human’s to mars… or are we? Uh oh, our engines are methane? Well, we can still use the LOX… except after only 10 years it’s not cheaper from the moon… that doesn’t happen for another 20 years (if you haven’t live long enough to have plenty of experience with this… wait.)

      So that’s another 40 years lost.

      1. Yes. I believe I’m saying that.

        …it’s about 50 Falcon Heavy launches- or about 5 billion.

        Let’s assume that’s a good estimate and takes about ten years. During those ten years suppose that did not interfere with sending 20 FH supplies to a mars base site (is that a good supposition?)

        Now we’re ready to send human’s to mars… or are we? Uh oh, our engines are methane? Well, we can still use the LOX… except after only 10 years it’s not cheaper from the moon… that doesn’t happen for another 20 years (if you haven’t live long enough to have plenty of experience with this… wait.)

        So that’s another 40 years lost.

        Timeline:
        NASA develops Depot in LEO and NASA explores the Moon, and it continues ISS..
        During 5 years, NASA is sending a few robotic missions to Moon, and using a depot it’s made within the 5 years and doing something to so that ISS does not require 3 billion per year from NASA so ISS can remain in orbit [the plan is not to de-orbit ISS but have ISS remain an international station indefinitely]. In term of doing this it seems that operating it in LEO indefinitely is problematic, so I think putting ISS into higher orbit could a way to mothball ISS.
        Or one can explore the Moon and spent 3 billion on ISS- though ISS and SLS is difficult to explore the Moon- though impossible if instead of lunar exploration one talking about Mars exploration.
        Or by time NASA finished exploring the Moon, NASA should also be finished spending 3 billion on ISS per year.
        So within following 5 years, NASA should finished with exploring the Moon, and finished it’s ISS program, yet ISS would still be in orbit, and allowing other nations or companies to use it.
        So in these 10 years, NASA establishes an operation of depot at 28 inclination. This could involve and series of protype depots or it’s not one grand gold plated depot, rather moving from experimental to operational depot- by using it and improving it.
        And during these 10 years, NASA sending dozen or more robotic
        missions to the moon and finishes with manned exploration of the Moon. And during couple years before finishing Lunar program it’s gearing up to do Mars exploration [robotic missions related to where to put an exploration Manned Base].
        So after 10 years, NASA begins Manned Mars program and finishes the Manned Lunar program, and as far as NASA concerned
        ISS is “mothballed”, though other parties might be using it.

    1. –gbaikie, I’m aware. How bout my challenge?–

      I am not sure what this means, but I guess you are referring to:
      “…Thereby delaying any mars mission which we could easily accomplish in less than a decade from now.

      For example, lunar water for mars fuel. Has anybody, anywhere, any time put together a time and cost estimate of putting water in orbit and turning it into fuel?”

      As you might be aware I have brought up the topic a few times, and I called it, “water in orbit”. So governmental prize thingy of buying some set amount of water shipped from Earth. Idea was to improve launch by buying water test payloads. The secondary purpose was to have 100 tons of water in orbit, which is owned by the government and is offered as additional prize, if any party would “mine it” and make rocket fuel.

      So idea was to put water payload which stay in orbit for number of years and one accumulate more water payloads over time. So you have 100 tons of water close to one other in terms of delta-v diferences.
      And “mining” such water seemed to me to be a lot easier than mining asteroids or the Moon And it would establish that technology and demonstrate depot operations.
      So a government is buying water and trading the water it got in orbit as incentive to possibly get a depot, but primary purpose was offer a short term market for water test payloads.
      Or one could say that government already buys test payloads- you could say part of COTs was buying test/demonstration payloads and governments have done this from the beginning.
      Anyways the cost of this to government was about 1/2 billion dollar over a decade- or 50 million per year on average. And it would be stopped if and once one had a depot in orbit, and depot might continue to buy these water payloads.
      And of course government could spend more money on it [or less money] though don’t see much downside to spending up say 5 time more than the 1/2 billion- except I would say there is some downside to the government paying too much per lb of water delivered. And thought paying 500 per lb of water payload was good price to pay and say paying much more than 1000 per lb to LEO is too much, though 1000 per lb or perhaps more to high orbit [say EML-1] would be fine.
      So it 1 million per ton and government offers to buy up to 100 tons and has the offer expire in 10 years. And it could be renewed and more than 100 tons could offered to be brought, but whatever offered is offered over enough years in the future so a rocket company could plan to use it, but reviewing such program every 10 years is also good and good to have point in time where it ends. Or it’s not suppose to be an entitlement or something, but rather it’s more of something like a prize.

      If government were serious or space was important, it could buy say 1000 tons of water delivered to EML-1 and to speed it up, offer to pay say 1.5 million per ton [so a 1.5 to 2 billion program] and it seems if offered 1000 tons of water payload at EML-1 to anyone who could make into rocket fuel, would inspire a significant amount of greed. But such idea would more about making depot which can make rocket fuel from water in orbit, rather than more about providing program to pay for test payloads.
      But space is not important and government is not serious. And we to have get to it to this point where space is important.

      1. I am not sure what this means

        My challenge is to show any plan, not necessarily in detail, by anyone that includes time and cost to make lunar water a viable fuel for use in getting to mars.

        That would allow us to compare that to the savings in time and cost short term to just going directly to mars. Long term there is no doubt savings but then something even better may come along.

        More difficult to put a metric to is the opportunity cost of delaying a mars colony by decades

Comments are closed.