Company to Settle and Mine Mars 526
Rutgersen writes "Wired is reporting that a new startup is planning to colonize and mine Mars by 2025. From the article: 'The new company, 4Frontiers, plans to mine Mars for building materials and energy sources, and export the planet's mineral wealth to forthcoming space stations on the moon and elsewhere.'"
Re:If it's too good to be true... (Score:5, Interesting)
How exactly is "intellectual property" going to be enforced once you leave the confines of our planet? Assuming they (or someone) can create a viable, long term colony on mars, the moon, a space station, wherever, no laws will apply to them. They could manufacture anything they want. Want a SpaceBose stereo? How about a copy of MicroSpace Windows? Who wants a MoonPorche?
I really hope the US doesn't assume the role of pushing our laws and practices into the 'final frontier.' But the question is, who gets to start the process? Do we leave it up to private companies? Whoever has the strongest military?
Re:If it's too good to be true... (Score:5, Interesting)
They are betting on the fact that people don't require any of that to give money away. They are "hiring" people for a company that is full of freedom and is pro-exploration but gives no solid foundation of how they will remain employed.
Making plastics is great and all but how do you expect to get people there and start the colony so that people can actually make these items w/the materials that are so readily available?
Update: It looks like the partly plan to make their money by building the technological infrastructure themselves. According to this document, they feel that they could be turning a $29.7 million dollar profit by 2010, 15 years before they establish their settlement! This document supposedly shows their plan of attack, but it seems so preliminary that it suggests that the company plans to make it up as they go along.
Just as I pointed out before, without actually saying it, this is very similiar to any dotcom startup in the 1990s. No true business model, no real plan, and no real company. Just a bunch of money and the web.
This is nothing more than an advertisement to gain capital.
First Person To Mars... OWNS IT. (Score:5, Interesting)
Who Should Own Mars? [capmag.com]
Think of it as the ultimate X-Prize. An entire planet for the taking.
The day anyone comes up with a viable business plan (which the guys in the Wired article, unfortunately, haven't done yet - and probably can't do so long as there are no private property rights in space), put me on the first colony ship of homesteaders.
Re:Right (Score:3, Interesting)
Who's going to be in charge of ensuring the safety of our planet when these yahoos go out and start dragging rocks home? Sure, Moon rocks were brought back to Earth without any grave consequences since the Moon is a sterile cinder floating in vacuum, but we just don't know enough about Martian biology to start considering bringing back *anything*.
Knowing what I know about how private industries operate, I wouldn't trust them to ensure our planetary ecosystem's safety.
Re:If it's too good to be true... (Score:1, Interesting)
Every single sentence in your post is wrong (Score:3, Interesting)
Take a look at Zubrin's "The Case for Mars" to get a clue.
Re:If it's too good to be true... (Score:2, Interesting)
Not a horrible business strategy in my mind.
Re:First Person To Mars... OWNS IT. (Score:2, Interesting)
In such a lawless land as Mars, with no police or military to enforce property rights, your "ownership" of Martian land at any one time is equal to the surface area of the bottom of your boots. Anyone could go to Mars, set up camp somewhere and have just as much claim to that land as someone with a base somewhere else. And, if someone with bigger guns can take your land, then he will "own" it.
For example, see what happens if you forget to pay your property taxes during a quarter...you'll learn the hard truth about property rights.
Re:IRON! (Score:5, Interesting)
For reference, here's the Delta-V chart [caltech.edu] that I'll be referencing.
Now getting on and off of Mars is the most expensive part. Yet at 4.1 km/s, it's far from unachievable. Because of the way that rocket engines work, the greater the Delta-V that is required, the more expensive the rocket must be. Since the delta-v for Low Mars Orbit is a bit more than half that of Earth. So it is quite feasible that existing rocketry could be used at a far lower cost.
Once in LMO, things become quite inexpensive. A Delta-V of 0.9km/s is all that's required to reach Phobos. With that tiny amount of Delta-V (which can be cheaply obtained via the use of ION engines), the spacecraft could pick up a ride on the Interplanetary Superhighway. [wikipedia.org] This transfer orbit would allow the craft to get its cargo to Earth on little more than station keeping fuel.
Once at Earth, the cargo could then be decelerated and dropped into the ocean, riding atop a simple, mass produced, heat shield. The epoxy solutions used in the capsules should work extremely well and would be inexpensive to mass produce. The cargo craft could then boost itself back to the Superhighway (again with inexpensive ION engines) and repeat the process. Things become even more efficient when cargo is sent both ways.
A more in-depth analysis would be required to determine the precise craft and materials necessary to turn a profit, but it certainly *is* doable with modern technology. And with a colony on Mars, we could support Asteriod mining, a far more profitable venture.
Re:Yeah, and I will cure cancer in 2045 (Score:3, Interesting)
That isn't how businesses operate. They have these things solved before they start shoveling out large piles of cash to build factories, dirty or clean, in places that are FAR from their intended market.
If you can do that without it costing a bajillion dollars...
Therein lies the crux of the problem. I don't beleive they know enough about the technical problems they face before pronouncing that they will be on Mars by 2025. They don't know how much it will cost, yet they set an end date?
That is a bad business practice.
Another thing to consider is that this company is planning this for twenty years from now.
Which is even more reason to find it suspect.
They may be counting on the fact that there will likely be an enormous difference between our current level of technology and that of civilization in 2025.
That's a good bet. The technology will certainly be different in 20 years. But not enough to make this venture any less bullshit.
Other than the internet, software, and the speed of computers, how much is technology different than 1985? We still drive cars, right? Our primary space exploration vehicle is (or was) still the shuttle.
It's not entirely unreasonable to expect that we'll have at least sustainable fusion reactors at that point (which nullifies any concerns about uranium or solar power).
Entirely unreasonable? No, but how likely? Not likely.
If they were saying they were going to do this now or in a few years, I'd be laughing and calling it a scam right along with you.
Twenty years is just a few years.
Given the ever accelerating advancement of technology however, I'm not going to dismiss it immediately as you seem to have done.
Cars haven't changed much since they were invented. They have gotten more efficient and faster, but they still use four wheels and a steering wheel. They still burn fossil fuels.
If you are considering the minor but important changes that have happened to cars as being a tremendous shift in personal transportation, then I can see how you would get the idea that the Mars venture could be possible.
But considering the HUGH technological challenges, much less the basic science questions yet to be answered, as being insignificant in a twenty year timeframe, then by all means, ship them your money.
Mine is staying in less speculative ventures.
Re:Capitalism at it's best (Score:3, Interesting)
...And your point is? It's still capitalism and I don't see where national property rights or boundries have anything to do with this one.
"Who is being robbed?"
The planet, as I stated. Are you fimiliar with the term 'personification'? Nobody lives in the ocean on this planet, does that mean it is ok to pillage it of it's natural resources?
"I'm tyring to remember the last time we mined something from another planet... must have missed that in my history books."
Perhaps you have missed a lot more than you think. The history you should take an example from is our own, on this planet. Any plan to export our methods of extracting resources on another planet had ought to be measured against our past history of devistation that we have already caused with such activities. The plan as proposed by this company is no more than an exportation of our past and current mining operations on earth with a lesser regard to it's effects on the environment there than we have taken here. I would suggest a quick search on google for 'mining catastrophies' as a start for a refresher on the things you admittedly have missed.
They're looking for the wrong thing (Score:4, Interesting)
Also if you can find extraterrestrial (not from Earth) fissionable material (uranium or thorium) that means you can avoid the risks and expense of having to launch it. A lot of people get upset if there's a proposal to launch a 100kg RTG. Well, to power a mining colony, they will need a lot more than 100kg of fission fuel. What kind of public reaction would there be to the proposal of launching several tons of uranium? It would be much better if they could dig it up on Mars and use it on Mars.
Some of the terraforming projects require moving asteroids of ice to Mars. Again, the only way you can do that is with a nuclear-powered mass driver on the asteroid, and it would be nice to not have to launch that much uranium from Earth.
So when my company starts its Mars base, the first thing we're going to do is find the uranium, and then we'll sell electricity, H2 and O2 to all the other companies that want to (effectively) sell dirt and water. I suspect there's a lot better markup on electricity than there is on dirt and water.
I assume there is uranium on Mars, but I've never heard of anyone looking for it or discussing it. It seems to me that if there are no extraterrestrial sources of uranium, that's going to be a big problem for colonization of space, because it really will take thousands of tons of uranium to provide all the power that's going to be needed for serious mining and fuel production. And no, solar power is not going to work for this. Mining and fuel production requires too much power for solar to be a realistic option. For any activities beyond Mars, solar gets even less realistic. As long as solar is the power source, power is going to be a very tight limiting factor, whereas if you've got a few hundred tons of uranium, power will not be the limiting factor.
Also I wonder if uranium would make a good radiation shield? It seems like DU would be quite effective for that?
The good news is that if you set up a reactor on one of Mars' moons or on an asteroid or in Mars orbit, you can make it enormous and not need any real containment structures. If the uranium is available, it might be much cheaper to build extraterrestrial reactors than it is on Earth.
----------------
mobile search [mwtj.com]
This is going to happen and here's why. (Score:3, Interesting)
Imagine that you want to be the BIG ASS BOSS of everybody and everything, no lip from anybody, period. And they can even make lots of bucks doing it.
You know what damage a 145 to 180 km kinetic weapon can cause. Extinction! Bad for business. Now think small. Real small.
What would a missile a few kilos of mass do if it was nudged from orbit, dropped down and hit the ground at terminal velocity. Were talking about a geosynchronously guided killer dead weight here.
And it requires very little energy to launch 'em, toss 'em and park 'em in LEO, from Mars, where there's lots of dirt waiting to be wrapped in plastic with a couple of little guidance rockets to give 'em a li'l shove.
The first one who gets off this dirt ball doesn't have to go far to get some REAL leverage. It doesn't even have to be thay complicated, or expensive, or long term or difficult.
If I can think this way, so can anybody else. (I bet Balls-mer would just love to have something like this right now. It would make it so much easier to dict..., uh, negotiate with the EU.)
Re:They're looking for the wrong thing (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Capitalism at it's best (Score:2, Interesting)
-- RLJ
Re:Late Breaking News: (Score:3, Interesting)
Indeed. I'm just surprised that you haven't voiced your (usually quite loud) opinion on the issue.
I mean, heck - mining ore for return to Earth is itself hugely problematic.
I personally think that mining asteroids would be more profitable, with a Mars colony serving just a support role. However, I don't think the costs of transportation are quite as high as we've been lead to believe. Scientists just aren't thinking creatively enough!
Consider for a moment, what's the escape velocity of Mars? 4.1km/s? That's damn near the velocity of Project HARP, [wikipedia.org] and definitely within the velocity capabilities of existing mass drivers! [wikipedia.org] So launching raw materials from Mars *could* be done cheaply.
The next problem is that of reaching Earth from Low Mars Orbit. How in the world are we going to get all those materials from Mars to Earth on the cheap? Using a Hohmann transfer, it would take 6.1km/s just to get to Low Earth Orbit! Of course, why would anyone want to waste 6.1km/s, when you could use ION engines to accelerate the cargo to less than 0.9km/s, then pick up the Interplanetary Superhighway? [wikipedia.org]
Once the highway dumps you back into Earth orbit, you merely need to deccelerate into the Earth's atmosphere. (I don't have a quick answer for this Delta-V, sorry.) An inexpensive, ablative epoxy/resin shield could be used for this stage, or some loss to the cargo could be accepted.
The cargo engines would then pickup Mars-bound cargo and hop back on the highway for a return trip!
I need to crunch some numbers on this, but it would be VERY cheap in comparison to most existing return models. And once the materials became valuable *in orbit* as opposed to being returned to the Earth, then the entire economic model could become highly profitable.
Re:More like it (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:If it's too good to be true... (Score:3, Interesting)
Hey, man, our space program is on Mars right now. Just because the current vehicles only carry cameras, don't think we can't send over the heavies [gizmag.com]
Damn uppity Martian settlers, next thing you know they'll be declaring independence and throwing Coca Cola into the harbour...
This story is just a denial of service attack (Score:3, Interesting)
What a waste of space. Nobody is going to make money going to Mars in the next 20 years. Bank on it. Nobody is going to Mars in the next 20 years. Bank on it.
The only money to be made on this boondoggle is by fleecing money from dreamers.
Space exploration with meat in the exploration vehicles is a total waste of time and money. Send a robot. The current Mars successes are wonderful reasons why we shouldn't send meat to Mars.
By 2025, we'll all be so jacked into our VR worlds banging Jenna Haze that we won't give a shit if we go to Mars anyway.
As a reference, I cite Kurzweil's Age of Spiritual Machines, which I refer to by shorthand as "the porn fantasy book." We're all going to be circuits and software someday anyway, so the idea of saving humanity by exploring space is ridiculous anyway. We'll be able to send ourselves anywhere in the universe without the meat, given enough time, starting in about a hundred years, if we haven't solved Fermi's Paradox ourselves the hard way.