If SpaceX or NASA or both were to go to Mars in the 2030s, what budget would be needed to develop all the technologies to create a small Mars base?I mean to make it permanently inhabited, and not a few Apollo-type missions, and then not come back for 50 years?https://spacenews.com/op-ed-mars-for-only-1-5-trillion/[zubenelgenubi: I edited the thread title.]
Yeah. Could be comparable to Artemis or ISS. Possibly less, if less redundancy and SpaceX alone were doing it (but I don't think SpaceX would do it this way... they really want to focus on transport).
If SpaceX or NASA or both were to go to Mars in the 2030s, what budget would be needed to develop all the technologies to create a small Mars base?
It's going to be SpaceX providing Mars surface installations, they may not want to but they have to, since nobody else is going to do it for them. NASA is certainly not doing it, by the time NASA realizes the need for this it'll be way too late. BTW a small Martian base is indistinguishable from the surface installation needed for a conjunction class mars mission.And SpaceX's work on HLS and Starship Mars variant will give them the necessary expertise for this. HLS will require an ECLSS and crew facilities that work both in zero-g and 1/6 g, and Starship Mars transfer vehicle/lander will require an ECLSS and crew facilities that can work continuously for 6 months in zero-g then work in 1/3 g for at least a short while, putting this two together should give them the necessary knowhow to build ECLSS and crew facilities that work in 1/3 g for 2 years.This doesn't mean SpaceX will do this alone, they'll have subcontractors, but those subcontractors won't be other aerospace primes, they would be companies like Tesla, Caterpillar, Liebherr, etc, just like their subcontractors for Earth based installations.
It is conceivable that SpaceX might go it alone with a Mars base, but I think highly unlikely. Musk will absolutely want Congress and NASA on board mostly for funding but also for political cover (nuclear power and planetary protection issues etc).
Best case I can imagine (Starship costing below 10 million per launch, with easy access to minable water, and being able to recycle much of the water used inside the base as well as using methods to providing a safe atmosphere cheaply) would be around 5 billion to design, build, and transport the base, associated rovers, and other equipment to Mars. In this scenario, I can see the cost to transport supplies and doing a crew rotation (10 people) every two years being as low as 500 million.
Quote from: AmigaClone on 01/20/2023 03:39 pmBest case I can imagine (Starship costing below 10 million per launch, with easy access to minable water, and being able to recycle much of the water used inside the base as well as using methods to providing a safe atmosphere cheaply) would be around 5 billion to design, build, and transport the base, associated rovers, and other equipment to Mars. In this scenario, I can see the cost to transport supplies and doing a crew rotation (10 people) every two years being as low as 500 million.Water from mining for propellant production should be cheap. They can't go to a location without plenty of water.Nitrogen, or a mix of Nitrogen and Argon will be byproduct of CO2 production for propellant. Since the engines run fuel rich and the ratio of Methane and Oxygen from propellant production will be stochiometric there will be a big surplus of oxygen. So plenty of atmospheric gases will be almost free. A means of CO2 scrubbing from the habitats will be the biggest ECLSS challenge.
To have a sustainable base on the moon and mars by 2033, I’ve estimated 50 launches per year. If there is a orbiting station around the moon and mars, say and additional 24 launches per year. So it will be about another century to get to this flight rate. Perhaps you would need to ask, will the annual budget exceed the planet Earth’s annual GDP?So what you are asking is, can the citizens of Earth afford sustainable human spaceflight with a budget above Earth’s GDP?
Quote from: Tywin on 01/03/2023 10:47 pmIf SpaceX or NASA or both were to go to Mars in the 2030s, what budget would be needed to develop all the technologies to create a small Mars base?To answer your question, 1- SpaceX needs to develop a long term life support system, that can operate without significant resupply for a few years and support 50-100 people. All of the technology exists for this, ... Development cost: 50 millions to adapt to Mars, and then perhaps one million$ per person.2- SpaceX needs to develop in-situ resource extraction. ... Less than $100 million3- Develop electrolysis and Sabatier reactors ...Develop Fuel production. A few hundred million at most.There is no need for a space station. That is a completely different use and purpose. So no cost here.4- Develop surface habitats....5- Develop a power source.... So not all that expensive, really.So you will only need a one billion dollars of so program to develop and build the hardware for the first base(s).The transportation costs, at 20 million per launch ... a money pit.
I would like to know how much you need to transport to Mars to set up a totally self sufficient minimalist colony that could possibly survive if Earth was wiped out, as this is meant to be Elon's long term plan. Fewer people might help as less raw materials would be required. Sperm and egg banks could help prevent inbreeding.
Quote from: colbourne on 01/29/2023 01:52 amI would like to know how much you need to transport to Mars to set up a totally self sufficient minimalist colony that could possibly survive if Earth was wiped out, as this is meant to be Elon's long term plan. Fewer people might help as less raw materials would be required. Sperm and egg banks could help prevent inbreeding.Elon Musk expects the need of 1 million people for a fully self sustaing settlement for a reason. It does not just require to produce all food. It needs industry from mining through raw material processing to end user goods for everything. It requires a full health system. It requires childcare from nursery to elementary and high school and universities.
That's not minimalist. Human colonies did not start with healthcare and and schools. A minimalist self-sustaining colony would eventually grow from a fairly grim and hardscrabble small base to evolve these things over several generations. However, to do this it does need to feed itself and it needs to be able to maintain its infrastructure and begin to expand it. Elon's vision is the luxury version, not the minimalist version.
Quote from: colbourne on 01/29/2023 01:52 amI would like to know how much you need to transport to Mars to set up a totally self sufficient minimalist colony that could possibly survive if Earth was wiped out, as this is meant to be Elon's long term plan. Fewer people might help as less raw materials would be required. Sperm and egg banks could help prevent inbreeding.An interesting question but is probably even harder to establish than the requirements for a small Martian base (and although related is quite a different question). A key question would be is mammalian reproduction possible and safe under 0.38g? Without that the whole enterprise would become nonsense.I doubt very much it will happen until there is a reasonable sized Mars base already in place and another Musk comes along and drives it to completion. I imagine it would require millions of tonnes of kit.
Is a low-tech self-sustaining base feasible? Bootstrapping would depend on the minimum necessary material support from Earth. Use horribly inefficient equipment, processes, and materials that can all be produced and implemented locally. The technological base would look about like a US factory or ship in the year 1900, but incorporating knowledge gained since then. No semiconductors or PV. Use thermal solar and massive mirrors. Use glass instead of plastic. I think you need locally-produced steel, and you need to bootstrap the ability to build large equipment similar to steam engines and construction equipment. The steel cannot be made using 1900's-level techniques, but low-tech alternatives can probably be created. It is possible to use steam power based on thermal storage but it is highly inefficient.The question is: Is this so inefficient that it cannot be bootstrapped?
It is curious to ponder what anybody is thinking proposing 20 B$ as "a very marginal cost".
Quote from: guckyfan on 01/29/2023 04:36 pmQuote from: colbourne on 01/29/2023 01:52 amI would like to know how much you need to transport to Mars to set up a totally self sufficient minimalist colony that could possibly survive if Earth was wiped out, as this is meant to be Elon's long term plan. Fewer people might help as less raw materials would be required. Sperm and egg banks could help prevent inbreeding.Elon Musk expects the need of 1 million people for a fully self sustaing settlement for a reason. It does not just require to produce all food. It needs industry from mining through raw material processing to end user goods for everything. It requires a full health system. It requires childcare from nursery to elementary and high school and universities.That's not minimalist. Human colonies did not start with healthcare and and schools. A minimalist self-sustaining colony would eventually grow from a fairly grim and hardscrabble small base to evolve these things over several generations. However, to do this it does need to feed itself and it needs to be able to maintain its infrastructure and begin to expand it. Elon's vision is the luxury version, not the minimalist version.
Quote from: DanClemmensen on 01/29/2023 05:39 pmThat's not minimalist. Human colonies did not start with healthcare and and schools. A minimalist self-sustaining colony would eventually grow from a fairly grim and hardscrabble small base to evolve these things over several generations. However, to do this it does need to feed itself and it needs to be able to maintain its infrastructure and begin to expand it. Elon's vision is the luxury version, not the minimalist version.It is. A Mars settlement is nothing if not high tech. You can have a minimalist settlement like you envision on Earth in the wilderness. With access to water and air and fertile soil, or at least with plenty of wildlife for food.
Low gravity is a non issue. Building large rotating 'gravitron' hospitals where women can spend as much time as required during their pregnancy is a small challenge compared to everything else.
Quote from: high road on 01/30/2023 11:09 amLow gravity is a non issue. Building large rotating 'gravitron' hospitals where women can spend as much time as required during their pregnancy is a small challenge compared to everything else.It's amusing to see how on one thread it is asserted that building a "large rotating graviton" habitat is virtually impossible, while seeing on another thread that is is a "small challenge".
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 01/31/2023 02:18 pmQuote from: high road on 01/30/2023 11:09 amLow gravity is a non issue. Building large rotating 'gravitron' hospitals where women can spend as much time as required during their pregnancy is a small challenge compared to everything else.It's amusing to see how on one thread it is asserted that building a "large rotating graviton" habitat is virtually impossible, while seeing on another thread that is is a "small challenge".I depends if the plan for this base is going to be real world or rely on an inexhaustible supply of imaginary cash. If $500 billion is no problem then who knows, if Congress are involved I can't see it personally.
It is quite likely that 1 million tonnes is a minimalistic base for self sufficient long term survival. The whole point is to make a base that could survive if Earth could no longer be relied upon for supplies. Even at 1million tonnes I cant see the ability to maintain production of cpu's continuing after the first maufacturing machines malfunctioned beyond repair.It would be necessary to work out the core skills and equipment for survival which is energy and food production, life support (breathable air), water recycling or mining. Finding a suitable tunnel would help. This would require airlocks and EVA suits to be manufactured and repaired. Maybe thinking small and primitive would make it easier to survive.Metals production, initially from meteorites would probably be essential.For comparison the Nimitz aircraft carrier weighs about 100,000 tonnes
Regarding fabricating CPUs, a friend of mine who teaches solid-state physics at the University of Michigan told me once that the biggest difference between the cheap and simple process he had his students use and the vastly more expensive processes companies like Intel use was that the big companies need very high yields. He and his students could be happy to get one working chip per wafer. (Of course, this was over ten years ago; modern technology may be less forgiving.)Anyway, if you want a civilization where everyone walks around with a hot CPU in his/her pocket, then, yeah, that'll take some doing. But if you just want to be able to manufacture a few hundred CPUs a year, there's no reason they ought to lose that ability. At least if you limit them to, say, 2010-level technology.
Quote from: Greg Hullender on 02/10/2023 09:05 pmRegarding fabricating CPUs, a friend of mine who teaches solid-state physics at the University of Michigan told me once that the biggest difference between the cheap and simple process he had his students use and the vastly more expensive processes companies like Intel use was that the big companies need very high yields. He and his students could be happy to get one working chip per wafer. (Of course, this was over ten years ago; modern technology may be less forgiving.)Anyway, if you want a civilization where everyone walks around with a hot CPU in his/her pocket, then, yeah, that'll take some doing. But if you just want to be able to manufacture a few hundred CPUs a year, there's no reason they ought to lose that ability. At least if you limit them to, say, 2010-level technology.And there is a technology just for that, called minimal fabs. https://www.minimalfab.com/en/based on 1/2 inch wafers. This seems a perfect match for Mars.
Quote from: lamontagne on 02/11/2023 02:29 pmQuote from: Greg Hullender on 02/10/2023 09:05 pmRegarding fabricating CPUs, a friend of mine who teaches solid-state physics at the University of Michigan told me once that the biggest difference between the cheap and simple process he had his students use and the vastly more expensive processes companies like Intel use was that the big companies need very high yields. He and his students could be happy to get one working chip per wafer. (Of course, this was over ten years ago; modern technology may be less forgiving.)Anyway, if you want a civilization where everyone walks around with a hot CPU in his/her pocket, then, yeah, that'll take some doing. But if you just want to be able to manufacture a few hundred CPUs a year, there's no reason they ought to lose that ability. At least if you limit them to, say, 2010-level technology.And there is a technology just for that, called minimal fabs. https://www.minimalfab.com/en/based on 1/2 inch wafers. This seems a perfect match for Mars.Semiconductor fabrication factories cost $Billions to build for a reason, and it is not just because of volume. The etching machines these days are so sophisticated that they can be restricted by country, which is why China is not able to build the most sophisticated CPU's these days.Instead of building low tech semiconductor products, it will just be cheaper to buy and import finished components from Earth. Semiconductor manufacturing will be one of the last technologies that Mars decides to do on their own, since the supply chain and technologies are so mature that you need a mature society to support them.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 02/11/2023 03:18 pmQuote from: lamontagne on 02/11/2023 02:29 pmQuote from: Greg Hullender on 02/10/2023 09:05 pmRegarding fabricating CPUs, a friend of mine who teaches solid-state physics at the University of Michigan told me once that the biggest difference between the cheap and simple process he had his students use and the vastly more expensive processes companies like Intel use was that the big companies need very high yields. He and his students could be happy to get one working chip per wafer. (Of course, this was over ten years ago; modern technology may be less forgiving.)Anyway, if you want a civilization where everyone walks around with a hot CPU in his/her pocket, then, yeah, that'll take some doing. But if you just want to be able to manufacture a few hundred CPUs a year, there's no reason they ought to lose that ability. At least if you limit them to, say, 2010-level technology.And there is a technology just for that, called minimal fabs. https://www.minimalfab.com/en/based on 1/2 inch wafers. This seems a perfect match for Mars.Semiconductor fabrication factories cost $Billions to build for a reason, and it is not just because of volume. The etching machines these days are so sophisticated that they can be restricted by country, which is why China is not able to build the most sophisticated CPU's these days.Instead of building low tech semiconductor products, it will just be cheaper to buy and import finished components from Earth. Semiconductor manufacturing will be one of the last technologies that Mars decides to do on their own, since the supply chain and technologies are so mature that you need a mature society to support them.Easy to import chips from Earth, but Elon wants Mars as a second chance for mankind if Earth suffered some disaster, resulting in no supplies coming from Earth. It would make sense to keep a large stock of chips on Mars, but this would eventually run out.
No country likes to depend on another country for its power. Even between good friends like Canada and the US there is a limit to what the US is willing to buy from us.If Mars doesn't build its chips and its solar cells, it is entirely dependent on Earth and open to economical pressure of a very fundamental sort. Any expansion, for example, requires Earth approval and support. If the food comes from grow rooms and vertical farms, then the food supply depends on Earth. Solar cells fail fairly quickly, on the time scale of a nation.
No city on earth can be independent in the modern world. It would take a massive leap of faith to believe a Martian city can.
Quote from: daedalus1 on 02/18/2023 07:46 amNo city on earth can be independent in the modern world. It would take a massive leap of faith to believe a Martian city can.Forgive him, O Elon. He knoweth not what he speaketh!! (I mean seriously, where could we possibly get the requisite supply of messianic faith to realize such a vision of a city...)
Quote from: Twark_Main on 02/18/2023 08:02 pmQuote from: daedalus1 on 02/18/2023 07:46 amNo city on earth can be independent in the modern world. It would take a massive leap of faith to believe a Martian city can.Forgive him, O Elon. He knoweth not what he speaketh!! (I mean seriously, where could we possibly get the requisite supply of messianic faith to realize such a vision of a city...)You know I am right. It will always require support from earth.
Just like antarctic outposts do. And Washington DC requires support from several Chinese cities. Etc etc.
Quote from: daedalus1 on 02/18/2023 11:03 pmQuote from: Twark_Main on 02/18/2023 08:02 pmQuote from: daedalus1 on 02/18/2023 07:46 amNo city on earth can be independent in the modern world. It would take a massive leap of faith to believe a Martian city can.Forgive him, O Elon. He knoweth not what he speaketh!! (I mean seriously, where could we possibly get the requisite supply of messianic faith to realize such a vision of a city...)You know I am right. It will always require support from earth.Argument by Trust Me Bro.Quote from: daedalus1 on 02/18/2023 11:03 pm Just like antarctic outposts do. And Washington DC requires support from several Chinese cities. Etc etc.Cuba* required support from Russia, until the ships stopped coming. Then, things changed.Similarly, I agree that a Mars colony will receive support from Earth.... until it doesn't. That's the point where self-sufficiency really kicks in, really matters.I hope someone on Mars has the foresight to enact contingency planning for it.Nevertheless, I'm sure many future internet arguers, right up until the day Earth blows up, will say "there's still trade with Earth, so Mars isn't self-sufficient." This misses the point entirely, focusing on fuzzy semantics over cold hard logistical realities.* yes, we know there are many obvious difference between Mars and Cuba; please spare us the recitation
Quote from: Greg Hullender on 02/10/2023 09:05 pmRegarding fabricating CPUs, a friend of mine who teaches solid-state physics at the University of Michigan told me once that the biggest difference between the cheap and simple process he had his students use and the vastly more expensive processes companies like Intel use was that the big companies need very high yields. He and his students could be happy to get one working chip per wafer. (Of course, this was over ten years ago; modern technology may be less forgiving.)Anyway, if you want a civilization where everyone walks around with a hot CPU in his/her pocket, then, yeah, that'll take some doing. But if you just want to be able to manufacture a few hundred CPUs a year, there's no reason they ought to lose that ability. At least if you limit them to, say, 2010-level technology.Why do you need 2010-level tech? It would be nice, but it's not essential. Apollo 11 flew in 1969. Reasonably competent 8-bit microprocessors (8080,6502) were available in 1974 and 1975. It is fairly easy to build process control and environmental control systems based in this level of hardware, so this will allow bootstraping of the colony's industrial base. The 3-inch wafer was introduced in 1972, but this was primarily driven by demand for tens of millions of processors. For the colony, a 1-inch wafer size will suffice for the bootstrap.
Quote from: lamontagne on 02/18/2023 03:19 amNo country likes to depend on another country for its power. Even between good friends like Canada and the US there is a limit to what the US is willing to buy from us.If Mars doesn't build its chips and its solar cells, it is entirely dependent on Earth and open to economical pressure of a very fundamental sort. Any expansion, for example, requires Earth approval and support. If the food comes from grow rooms and vertical farms, then the food supply depends on Earth. Solar cells fail fairly quickly, on the time scale of a nation.You make it sound as if "Mars" is a separate independent nation. That seems to be a very long way off if it happens at all. There needs to be landings, then a base then perhaps humans living on Mars long term and finally having children there if this is a safe practical proposition.If it is possible I imagine Mars will be dependant on Earth for hundreds of years and it will take some future Musk to force the issue with things like chip manufacture as a policy choice to make humanity truly multi-planetary.
You can't compare it to the American nation for all sorts of obvious reasons. Imagine if there was no atmosphere over north America and nothing living. Then reset your brain.
Don't see why Mars should be any different, if Mars is livable at all. But the premise here is that a base can grow into a settlement and then into a city state/nation.
It should be possible to model a Mars colony on a computer and work out at what stage it has a chance of surviving independently from Earth.
Quote from: daedalus1 on 02/24/2023 06:17 amYou can't compare it to the American nation for all sorts of obvious reasons. Imagine if there was no atmosphere over north America and nothing living. Then reset your brain.As long as North America was in a position to export enough to cover the costs of import (the united states has always imported plenty of goods, that's why cities close to sea access are the largest), it would have sought a way out from egregious taxation. Like every self respecting city/region did since at least antiquity.But considering you need a massive number of complex supply chains to produce everything a human population wants (as in: will seek a way to pay to import) and local production is easily several times as expensive due to having to make the stuff that would be considered available resources on Earth, that seems off topic for this thread.
Quote from: high road on 02/28/2023 07:34 amQuote from: daedalus1 on 02/24/2023 06:17 amYou can't compare it to the American nation for all sorts of obvious reasons. Imagine if there was no atmosphere over north America and nothing living. Then reset your brain.As long as North America was in a position to export enough to cover the costs of import (the united states has always imported plenty of goods, that's why cities close to sea access are the largest), it would have sought a way out from egregious taxation. Like every self respecting city/region did since at least antiquity.But considering you need a massive number of complex supply chains to produce everything a human population wants (as in: will seek a way to pay to import) and local production is easily several times as expensive due to having to make the stuff that would be considered available resources on Earth, that seems off topic for this thread.I'm not sure you're understanding my point which is, if Mars had an atmosphere and plant and animal life, a city still wouldn't be self sufficient from earth. The fact it is a planet with almost no atmosphere and no life means the situation is orders of magnitude worse.
The US got fed up with the English after about 160 years or so. 1610 to 1776. The population went from 350 loyal subjects to 2.5 millions Americans in that time.Don't see why Mars should be any different, if Mars is livable at all. But the premise here is that a base can grow into a settlement and then into a city state/nation.
