Dr. Metzger's model of economics of starting a city on Mars

[su27k]

He doesn't mention SBSP at all in the Mars bit. He explains an economic model for SBSP, without refering to Mars, and then an economic model to estimate Mars resupply costs without mentioning SBSP.

Where does the electricity come from in the "economic model"?

There is no mention of electricity at all in the Mars economic model. You may see a role for it, but it's not mentioned at all in Metzger's explanation of his economic model. It's all about estimating transport costs, full stop. Every other consideration is handwaved away at best.

It's true that the electricity is not mentioned, although I suspect it will have a place in the model, energy sector is a pretty big sector in the economy, so it has to be represented. Also I don't think the model is about estimating transportation cost at all, he basically assumed Starship's low cost is a given, the model is mainly concerned with bootstrapping an industrial base from zero, which is kind of his research area.

[Slarty1080]

He doesn't mention SBSP at all in the Mars bit. He explains an economic model for SBSP, without refering to Mars, and then an economic model to estimate Mars resupply costs without mentioning SBSP.

Where does the electricity come from in the "economic model"?

There is no mention of electricity at all in the Mars economic model. You may see a role for it, but it's not mentioned at all in Metzger's explanation of his economic model. It's all about estimating transport costs, full stop. Every other consideration is handwaved away at best.

It's true that the electricity is not mentioned, although I suspect it will have a place in the model, energy sector is a pretty big sector in the economy, so it has to be represented. Also I don't think the model is about estimating transportation cost at all, he basically assumed Starship's low cost is a given, the model is mainly concerned with bootstrapping an industrial base from zero, which is kind of his research area.

Just about every process will require electricity in one form or another. Most plastic production, propellant production and steel production will require vast amounts. Not including it in the model seems to me to be a rather a big flaw. Available power will be the throttle on the entire development of Mars and any model that disregards it is nonsense.

[lamontagne]

He doesn't mention SBSP at all in the Mars bit. He explains an economic model for SBSP, without refering to Mars, and then an economic model to estimate Mars resupply costs without mentioning SBSP.

Where does the electricity come from in the "economic model"?

There is no mention of electricity at all in the Mars economic model. You may see a role for it, but it's not mentioned at all in Metzger's explanation of his economic model. It's all about estimating transport costs, full stop. Every other consideration is handwaved away at best.

It's true that the electricity is not mentioned, although I suspect it will have a place in the model, energy sector is a pretty big sector in the economy, so it has to be represented. Also I don't think the model is about estimating transportation cost at all, he basically assumed Starship's low cost is a given, the model is mainly concerned with bootstrapping an industrial base from zero, which is kind of his research area.

Just about every process will require electricity in one form or another. Most plastic production, propellant production and steel production will require vast amounts. Not including it in the model seems to me to be a rather a big flaw. Available power will be the throttle on the entire development of Mars and any model that disregards it is nonsense.

It is unlikely that a model that is based on the need of Earth for Spaced Based Solar Power would forget to provide power to Mars :-)
The presentation doesn't describe the Mars model at all, except a parallel with the US economy.  Since Metzinger proposes that a solar based economy on Earth would require 25% of the world's economy to support its development, one would expect that Mars would be the same.  And from what I've gathered from all theses discussions over the years, power might be an even larger draw on the Martian economy.  Unless the power was created by self assembling machines/factories, another one of Metzger's interests.  Again without data we can only speculate.
The main question though is: Are Solar Power Satellites in geostationary orbit a likely answer to Earth's energy needs?  And can the transportation advantage be enough to favor Martian industries?
If we suppose 70$ per kg to geostationary orbit using Starship, and 50$ per kg coming from Mars, is that 25$ per kg a significant amount compared to the cost of the goods themselves?
After all steel fabrication is only a few$ per kg, as are food and many other goods.  So a transportation advantage in space may be significant, since the transportation costs are still much higher than the fabrication costs.

[Lar]

I believe Dr. Metzger is writing a paper, but it's not finished.

As for the model, I think some of the summary above is incorrect:
1. Export is assumed to be massless, modeled after massless export from the US
2. Initial setup cost from Musk is not $100B to $1T, that's Musk's own estimate for the entire endeavor. The initial investment is R&D of hardware and get an initial habitat up and running, the latter Dr. Metzger gave a $10B estimate.

$10B to get an initial hab "up and running"?  This is roughly the cost of SLS.  Metzger is overconfident, and under researched in the cost of this project.  Again, I'm not against the idea at all.  I'm for accurate costing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System

With mature transport 10 B is not totally unreasonable as an initial investment. Don't do it ISS style with a standing army groundside.

The *estimate* did not include "mature" transport.  The *estimate* assumes from scratch.  I'm not sure of your definitions.

No, it assumes Starship level costing. Transport (to Mars) is not a significant fraction of the cost that the 10 B initial investment in the base has to cover.

Don't pick at things needlessly.

[ZachF]

One interesting way to potentially fund a Martian colony would be for the worlds reserve currency to become the Martian currency.

Providing currency to the rest of the world mathematically requires a country to run a trade deficit (Triffin’s dilemma), and it’s why the US runs persistent trade deficits.

[sebk]

After January 1971, the US dollar is a note distributed by the Treasury based on debt.  Prior to that point, it was based on credit backed by gold. 

The only remotely correct statement in this post. For the rest the only answer is Jim's standard one:

Mars dollars would only be backed by a ticket to return back to Earth to reliably breath fresh air again and feel warmth.  There is no economy on Mars as the only goods and services to purchase are those to leave.

Wrong

If there was a survey of inhabitants on Mars, 100% would want to leave.  They would want to pay just about anything to make things better on Earth vs stay on Mars.

Wrong

Survey of those on Earth wanting to live on Mars would likely be below 0.0000001% of the [population]. No doubt the first person to step on Mars would be famous.  But the rest would lose any attractive interest of the idea pretty quickly.

The moon may have some appeal with [people] for a limited duration stay for hours/ and maybe one or two Earth days.

Provably wrong.

[Twark_Main]

...

If there was a survey of inhabitants on Mars, 100% would want to leave.

...

Survey of those on Earth wanting to live on Mars would likely be below 0.0000001% of the [population].

...

...Votes were ~ 10:1 vote AGAINST living on Mars...

I can't help but notice a substantial numerical gap between your earlier claims and the evidence now presented.

"Only" three-quarters of a billion candidates to choose from? Whatever shall we do??   

[Coastal Ron]

There was a museum that showed off an exhibit with a Mars base camp, rovers, and what life would be like.  You know - tubes with idiotic panels that blink.   

Then the families and kiddos got to walk thru the turnstiles as they exited.  One turnstile was for a "want to live on Mars" vote.  The other was a "don't want to live on Mars vote".  Votes were ~ 10:1 vote AGAINST living on Mars - as they experienced it on Earth.

You didn't say when this supposed museum exhibit existed (or when), so it is hard to understand how much stock to put into the placement of the turnstiles (i.e. was there bias in the placement?).

Building the economy to improve the GDP of Antarctica might have a better chance.

I'm not sure you are understand why Elon Musk wants to colonize Mars... 

There is one luxury hotel in Antarctica somewhere.

There are ZERO luxury hotels in Antarctica. There is one private camp where you stay in tents and someone cooks nice meals for you, and you do end up spending LOTS of money for that experience. However that is NOT the same as staying at a "luxury hotel".

But Antarctica clearly isn't where people want to "go", if you know what I mean.

Again, you don't seem to understand why Elon Musk wants to colonize Mars, and why Earthlings would want to travel to Mars to become Martians.

As to the economics of colonizing Mars, I have always viewed colonization as the equivalent of a humanitarian effort, where money goes in but no money comes out. What Dr. Metzger is proposing is that the amount of money needed to colonize Mars may not be as much as many people fear. Which would be nice, but it can't be proven out until people are actually on Mars trying to make colonization work.

[spacenut]

The moon and Mars, I predict will be initially exploration first, then finding resources such as water and minerals to mine.  Once minerals are found, they will be exploited. 

What will come first would be the set up to make liquid methane and lox, which includes a lot of solar panels. 

Second will be a base camp for living quarters with more solar power. 

Third, I believe will be a greenhouse for food production.  It may be underground, or regolith covered.  This also with more solar power.

Forth, I believe will be rovers to explore for minerals, maybe even using robots to explore. 

Fifth, will be setting up for industrial production of glass and metals for use to build more buildings and industrialization as well as more power production, by this time maybe some nuclear power and larger battery banks, maybe even methane engines for emergency power. 

All of this can be done over several years with 2 year to 4 year stints of colonists.  Some will stay longer, some will want to come back to earth.  It will be done similar to the military with volunteers.  Eventually those who want to stay will become a larger and larger group.  Then children will be born.  Even if it is 1 in 100 people who want to go and stay, that is still thousands of people.  People staying permanent will happen eventually even if it is 20-50 years after the first landings.  They may only then just vacation on earth, or maybe decide to retire on earth after being on Mars.  The 40% gravity, plus the added weight of space suits going outside, and wearing ankle or wrist weights should keep them in shape for 1g. 

As far as economics, the mining and production of products from raw materials, will be the economics, especially if rare earth metals are found in abundance, or rare metals in general.  Eventually larger and larger domed living spaces, or as on the TV show, The Expanse, large living areas were built into the walls of Valles Marineris.  This allowed for some protection from radiation or meteors, and still allowed you to see outside.  Made sense. 

[Twark_Main]

...

If there was a survey of inhabitants on Mars, 100% would want to leave.

...

Survey of those on Earth wanting to live on Mars would likely be below 0.0000001% of the [population].

...

...Votes were ~ 10:1 vote AGAINST living on Mars...

I can't help but notice a substantial numerical gap between your earlier claims and the evidence now presented.

"Only" three-quarters of a billion candidates to choose from? Whatever shall we do??   

You shall boldly stay.

This is such a bizarre "burn" coming from the guy who (just moments ago) claimed "100% of inhabitants on Mars would want to leave" and "likely below 0.0000001% of those on Earth want to live on Mars." 

I get it that you don't want to go to Mars. Fine. But why project that onto everyone else, despite all evidence to the contrary?

As you say, real data indicate hundreds of millions of candidates. Finding volunteers is not a bottleneck.

[Twark_Main]

The economics of Mars was never to make something like a Net Present Value (NPV) calculation work out.  To go to Mars and make it work, you have to go broke.

Sounds like you could be describing Iridium, Beal Aerospace, etc. The investors lose their shirts (sad!), but the technology the company built goes on to power successful space operations.

The dollar is backed by debt.  The currency for Mars is more like a balance between getting enlisted to excavate rocks all year in order to breathe,

Breathe easy, friend. For breathing and drinking, the amount of water mining is trivial. The real challenge will be mining enough water for propellant production.

and being selected to save the human species by being the next meal for the rest of the colony.

Surely you're joking. 

"How much food do we send so everyone doesn't starve" is a ridiculously simple calculation. Sending ample reserves of food is cheap (mass-wise) vs other risk mitigations.

As for the museum.... yeah, there was a clear winner.  Margin of error might have been +/- 10%.  Mars was a landslide loss AGAINST.

It's not a political race. It's not about "which side wins."

There is, quite literally, zero requirement that a majority of people want to go to Mars. None. Zip. Nadda.

That was never a requirement, ever.

[Coastal Ron]

In general I agreed with your post, and the sequence you laid out. What I disagree with is the first sentence in your last paragraph:

The moon and Mars, I predict will be initially exploration first, then finding resources such as water and minerals to mine.  Once minerals are found, they will be exploited. 

...

As far as economics, the mining and production of products from raw materials, will be the economics, especially if rare earth metals are found in abundance, or rare metals in general.

There is a misnomer that rare-earth elements (REE) are called that because they are, from a percentage of all mass, rare. They are not. Wikipedia states:

Despite their name, rare-earth elements are relatively plentiful in Earth's crust, with cerium being the 25th most abundant element at 68 parts per million, more abundant than copper.

What makes them difficult to get in pure form here on Earth is the processing it takes to separate them from other common elements, typically uranium and thorium. For more details see this EPA website.

But the bottom line is that Mars won't have the mining infrastructure to specifically look for rare Earth elements for a very long time, and it likely would not have the resources to separate them even if uranium and thorium were found.

[Barley]

... likely be below 0.0000001% of the [population]. ...

Do you mean fewer that 8 people or did you just type zeros until you got tired?

[zubenelgenubi]

Moderator:
The thread has strayed from discussing Metzger's economic model to (yet another) general discussion of Martian colonization.

Please return to the specific topic.

[lamontagne]

I've contacted Dr. Metzger and got a reply.  His model is a work in progress at this point and not public.  Perhaps if I ask very nicely he will share some thoughts.

[JohnFornaro]

There was a museum that showed off an exhibit ... Then the families and kiddos got to walk thru the turnstiles as they exited.  One turnstile was for a "want to live on Mars" vote.  The other was a "don't want to live on Mars vote".

You didn't say when this supposed museum exhibit existed (or when), so it is hard to understand how much stock to put into the placement of the turnstiles (i.e. was there bias in the placement?).

It would be ludicrous to posit, and you didn't, that leftists would have gone thru the left turnstile and rightists the right one.  What possible bias could there be?  But still, a link would be appreciated. Also, to extrapolate from this *exhibit* to the entire population of the Earth, would also be ludicrous.

As to the economics of colonizing Mars, I have always viewed colonization as the equivalent of a humanitarian effort, where money goes in but no money comes out. What Dr. Metzger is proposing is that the amount of money needed to colonize Mars may not be as much as many people fear. Which would be nice, but it can't be proven out until people are actually on Mars trying to make colonization work.

Metzger's analysis is faulty as presented.  He basically argued from assertion only in the lecture and in his list of items.  Metzger does not provide backup of his *economic* analysis, and several important omissions have been mentioned up thread.  A proper accounting would be done before launching people, however.  Over time, they would, if successful, develop an economy, but I think the "humanitarian effort" would continue for quite some time.

It wouold be nice if Metzger engaged in this thread. 

[JohnFornaro]

[Pretty much everything] which includes a lot of solar panels. 

You've temporarily forgotten nuclear batteries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_battery

[Twark_Main]

[Pretty much everything] which includes a lot of solar panels. 

You've temporarily forgotten nuclear batteries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_battery

They didn't forget. They just realize that atomic batteries aren't a practical way to power "pretty much everything." They'll exist no doubt, but never as more than a rounding error.

You can run a toy or a space probe on atomic batteries. You can't run an entire society on atomic batteries, because they require vastly more energy to manufacture than they produce over their lifetime. Building atomic batteries is a net energy negative activity.

Despite appearances to the contrary, atomic batteries are actually energy storage / transmission devices, not energy generation devices.

Perhaps this would be okay if you're content to be dependent on imported energy from Earth forever. But even in that scenario, atomic batteries can't compete against nuclear reactors.

[rakaydos]

There was a museum that showed off an exhibit ... Then the families and kiddos got to walk thru the turnstiles as they exited.  One turnstile was for a "want to live on Mars" vote.  The other was a "don't want to live on Mars vote".

You didn't say when this supposed museum exhibit existed (or when), so it is hard to understand how much stock to put into the placement of the turnstiles (i.e. was there bias in the placement?).

It would be ludicrous to posit, and you didn't, that leftists would have gone thru the left turnstile and rightists the right one.  What possible bias could there be?  But still, a link would be appreciated. Also, to extrapolate from this *exhibit* to the entire population of the Earth, would be ludicrous too.

It would NOT be ludicrous, however, for one turnstyle to be closer to the direct line between the last doorway and the restroom, gift ship, or exit, creating a bias toward the "easiest" turnstyle. Particularly if it's low traffic and the sign not particularly highlighted, even a minor systemic bias like that can skew the results.

Not saying that's the case... but since we havnt gotten enough information to even verify this exibit's existance, you cant claim that it ISNT biased.

[lamontagne]

I got a second reply to a comment I made about energy use.  He will be reviewing his model for higher energy use on Mars and for more work for materials due to less concentrated ores.  The model is still incomplete so nothing definitive to share.

If he is like all other researchers I know, he's probably too busy to engage much outside of his already active media presence.  So I'll leave my questions at that.  It was very nice of him to respond at all.