Near-future Expansion of Human Presence in Cislunar Space

[vholub]

Hi Everybody!

I always found that people who are thinking about the future of space colonization think in two different ways - either going full sci-fi with O'Neill colonies and large rotating space stations, or going with the ISS way of connecting small expensive cylindrical modules together. People think about the far future, or the near past.

But what about the near future? What can we do in the next 10 years? Can we develop a scalable, mass produced method that would enable growing the population in Low Earth Orbit to hundreds or thousands of people?

In the past year and a half, I developed a concept for such a space station. It could be placed into LEO in a single launch of New Glenn or Starship and it would offer 2-4x the pressurized volume of the entire ISS. Its important parts are interchangeable and could be mass produced.

I published a paper at AIAA SciTech 2020 on this concept and I would be really excited if you could read it and give me a feedback. It is available here: https://www.orb2.com/downloads/Orb2_AIAA_SciTech_2020.pdf

I also just finished a video render that shows how it would be assembled together:

Lot of you are more experienced engineers than me, what do you think? What would you improve on? Are there some other similar ideas? How would you scale up colonization with today's technology?

[Coastal Ron]

Hi Everybody!

I always found that people who are thinking about the future of space colonization think in two different ways - either going full sci-fi with O'Neill colonies and large rotating space stations, or going with the ISS way of connecting small expensive cylindrical modules together.

I don't think that way, and I know other others that don't either, so I think you misreading the market.

But what about the near future? What can we do in the next 10 years? Can we develop a scalable, mass produced method that would enable growing the population in Low Earth Orbit to hundreds or thousands of people?

There is no lack of ideas, but there is a lack of ideas that address what is known as a "market need". For instance, who needs a growing population in LEO? What is their need? You need to know that before designing a station, or really for designing anything.

In the past year and a half, I developed a concept for such a space station. It could be placed into LEO in a single launch of New Glenn or Starship and it would offer 2-4x the pressurized volume of the entire ISS. Its important parts are interchangeable and could be mass produced.

First of all the graphics are GREAT! I wish I had your skill.

However what you show is not a station, but just an empty enclosure. And I'm not clear why your ball-style enclosure is any better than what Bigelow has proposed? For instance, how is your ball-style more MMOD resistant, or radiation resistant?

You only show two solar panels, so it doesn't look like it is meant for a laboratory or a manufacturing facility, or as a space hotel since you only have room for two spacecraft docked at a time, so you are limited to the number of people on the station as can fit in those two spacecraft.

Lot of you are more experienced engineers than me, what do you think? What would you improve on? Are there some other similar ideas? How would you scale up colonization with today's technology?

I'm not an engineer, so take my critique as feedback from one space geek to another. But I am active on the rotating space station threads, and I've been working on designs for rotating space stations. So I'm familiar with the issues that you face.

And even for my designs I have to answer the question "who would want it?" Until you can answer that question you won't know if what you have designed meets the needs of any potential customers. And since you specifically state that your design is for colonization, I'd say that it is not suited for that application, for a number of reasons.

My $0.02

[Lar]

Agree with Coastal Ron, you may want to do some reading in other threads to get a lot more background on just about everything you bring up.

[ppnl]

You can't have a large growing population in space without solving the radiation problem and the gravity problem.

[vholub]

Coastal Ron, thanks for the feedback!

I did not have any skill either, nor did I ever created a 3D model of anything before I started developing this idea.

Could you please point out some forums/threads where these ideas of have been shared? Thank you!

[vholub]

You can't have a large growing population in space without solving the radiation problem and the gravity problem.

I think I disagree with both statements there. I am not necessarily talking about everyone living and working in space. I am talking about people in good physical shape, productive age who live & work there for a year(s) but in hundreds, commercially. The goal would be to build enough expertise and industry in LEO that would allow you to eventually build those large rotating habitats.

Radiation in LEO is not a big deal for a year or two. Neither is gravity, if you follow the workout procedures.

[Coastal Ron]

I am talking about people in good physical shape, productive age who live & work there for a year(s) but in hundreds, commercially. The goal would be to build enough expertise and industry in LEO that would allow you to eventually build those large rotating habitats.

In that case then that is not "colonization", since it is a place of work, not a place where people will live out their lives. And you state in your thread title that you specifically wanted to talk about colonization. See the definition for the word "colony".

So you should either change your thread title, or change your idea to one that supports colonization.

[vholub]

I meant it as a first necessary step towards colonization. Title changed.

[MATTBLAK]

For the forseeable future: 'Colonies' in Cislunar space is a mischaracterization of what is actually going to happen there. It's just like I cringe every bloody time I see the mainstream media use the word 'colony' or its synonyms when they talk about humans exploring space. "NASA wants to build a colony on the Moon/Mars" blurts the mainstream news and popular science websites, magazines and newspapers. I even saw one clueless place describe ISS as the Earth orbital 'colony' when the new crew were launched there a couple days back! There will be no 'colonies' on the Moon or Cislunar space within the lifetimes of anyone reading this post.

[Coastal Ron]

I meant it as a first necessary step towards colonization. Title changed.

Thanks for making the title change.

Back to your proposal, essentially all you have proposed is an empty round enclosure that is assembled in space.

As for your assembly method, I'm not sure it would actually work. Sure you can click parts together, but welding parts together in space is something new. Sure, we do it all the time on the ground, but we understand how that works (and doesn't work) in various environments.

An easy question to ask is why does the customer care that you build your structure in space? We have increasingly larger rockets able to deliver larger payloads, so why not just build cylindrical modules on Earth and launch them into LEO to be assembled into larger structures? Your design does not look like it lends itself to being made bigger, but based on what we have learned from the ISS we know we can connect many modules together to make a larger structure.

At some point we will build things in space, and maybe even used electron-beam welding, but we don't have to do that yet. Not when Blue Origin is offering payload volumes on New Glenn that would accommodate a cylindrical module 6m in diameter by 10m in length. That is a MASSIVE amount of room, and you can join as many of them together as you need. All made and outfitted on Earth, where it costs the least.

Why not do it that way?

[vholub]

At some point we will build things in space, and maybe even used electron-beam welding, but we don't have to do that yet. Not when Blue Origin is offering payload volumes on New Glenn that would accommodate a cylindrical module 6m in diameter by 10m in length. That is a MASSIVE amount of room, and you can join as many of them together as you need. All made and outfitted on Earth, where it costs the least.

Why not do it that way?

To me, it just boils down to math.

Assuming that the assembly/welding method would be figured out and reliable, then:
Being generous, if you are using New Glenn, you can put a cylindrical module of 13.5m inner length and 6.1m inner diameter, which would give you roughly 260 m3 (but, as an advantage, fully equipped inside).

The concept has internal volume of over 2000 m3 and a single launch.

To get the same volume, you would need 8x more launches and space rendezvous, meaning each module would have to have hardware to be able to meet with the space station. It all ads so much more cost.

I will admit that I don't know how many launches would you need to equip the habitation module (the spherical part).

[cdebuhr]

At some point we will build things in space, and maybe even used electron-beam welding, but we don't have to do that yet. Not when Blue Origin is offering payload volumes on New Glenn that would accommodate a cylindrical module 6m in diameter by 10m in length. That is a MASSIVE amount of room, and you can join as many of them together as you need. All made and outfitted on Earth, where it costs the least.

Why not do it that way?

To me, it just boils down to math.

Assuming that the assembly/welding method would be figured out and reliable, then:
Being generous, if you are using New Glenn, you can put a cylindrical module of 13.5m inner length and 6.1m inner diameter, which would give you roughly 260 m3 (but, as an advantage, fully equipped inside).

The concept has internal volume of over 2000 m3 and a single launch.

To get the same volume, you would need 8x more launches and space rendezvous, meaning each module would have to have hardware to be able to meet with the space station. It all ads so much more cost.

I will admit that I don't know how many launches would you need to equip the habitation module (the spherical part).

Its a nice animation ... but I'm struggling with the use case.  I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on the zero-g welding, as I'm not really qualified to comment beyond the observation that were already pretty good at welding on the ground.  We'll leave that as a challenge to be overcome.  If you can get structural integrity from the (very strong) latches, you might get away with welding, or even a polymer adhesive, for the pressure seal.

So you make a big hollow ball.  Now you've got to fit out the interior, moving everything in through relatively small docking ports.  It might be easier if you could start moving stuff in before the sphere is finished, but that may interfere with your proposed build process.  It would certainly complicate things.  And require more launches.  I've bolded a couple bits in your previous post where you point out the issue yourself.  The "standard" cylindrical modules can be fully kitted out and ready to go.  Just dock them together and you're done, more or less.  You may find that when you account for fitting out the interior of your sphere, your launch count advantage mostly evaporates.  Also note that separate cylinders have the additional advantage of possible pressure hatches between modules.  This could be a Very Good Thing if you suffer a small hull breach and need to seal part of the station.

So were back to the use case.  It took me a while to get past a zero G MMA arena.  I think you could probably get a depressingly large amount of revenue from that.  Tanks for a large orbital propellant depot?  Maybe ... probably too small, but just increase the number of tiles.  Now were talking about a much larger orbital construction project, so the single launch "advantage" is out the door, but that's OK as were now in the realm of a large orbital civil engineering project.  Just launch more tiles.  Lots more.  What else ... some sort of space manufacturing where you actually need that much clear open space perhaps (just don't ask my why!)?  You'll notice everything I can come up with are applications where you might want your big open sphere to be just that.  If you just want habitation and "normal" lab/work space, ready-to-go cylinders will likely get you farther, faster, cheaper.

One last point ... I'm still mulling this over as a method to build (much) larger structures from larger numbers of tiles (more launches, but the single-launch advantage of this concept is largely illusory anyway).  The one reason for building a one-launch, sphere-with-service-module structure of the sort you propose is as a proof of concept.  Sort of like the BEAM module on the ISS.  If it works, then you can think about scaling ...

Or maybe sell one to Axiom Space ... they could attach it to the station they're planning to build.  Zero G MMA anyone?

[Cererean]

Hmm. Instead of panelling, what about a geodesic framework that would be covered in multiple layers of polymer to form the pressure shell?

Think of it as a step up from the orbital shack GW Johnson proposes for repairing and assembling spacecraft. In this case, the space frame would be used to support the shell during construction.

[ppnl]

You can't have a large growing population in space without solving the radiation problem and the gravity problem.

I think I disagree with both statements there. I am not necessarily talking about everyone living and working in space. I am talking about people in good physical shape, productive age who live & work there for a year(s) but in hundreds, commercially. The goal would be to build enough expertise and industry in LEO that would allow you to eventually build those large rotating habitats.

Radiation in LEO is not a big deal for a year or two. Neither is gravity, if you follow the workout procedures.

Well you said cislunar. Most of that is not protected from radiation. If you mean LEO then you should say so.

Even in LEO there is a limit to the population you could maintain. You would need hundreds of launches a year just to replace personnel. I just don't know what they could be doing up there to make the expense worth it.

No, if you want a large growing population they need to  be able to live up there indefinitely and be reasonably self-sufficient.

[TrevorMonty]

At some point we will build things in space, and maybe even used electron-beam welding, but we don't have to do that yet. Not when Blue Origin is offering payload volumes on New Glenn that would accommodate a cylindrical module 6m in diameter by 10m in length. That is a MASSIVE amount of room, and you can join as many of them together as you need. All made and outfitted on Earth, where it costs the least.

Why not do it that way?

To me, it just boils down to math.

Assuming that the assembly/welding method would be figured out and reliable, then:
Being generous, if you are using New Glenn, you can put a cylindrical module of 13.5m inner length and 6.1m inner diameter, which would give you roughly 260 m3 (but, as an advantage, fully equipped inside).

The concept has internal volume of over 2000 m3 and a single launch.

To get the same volume, you would need 8x more launches and space rendezvous, meaning each module would have to have hardware to be able to meet with the space station. It all ads so much more cost.

I will admit that I don't know how many launches would you need to equip the habitation module (the spherical part).

The other option is to 3d print structure in space, see Relativity stargate printer. Feed stock is reels of wire.

I don't see case for LEO colony but there should be case for space hotel and research facility. Production facilities will be zeroG and unmanned, in cases unpressurized as vacuum is also part of reason for manufacturing in space. Unmanned make it cheaper to support but also removes lot of vibrations, odd visit for maintenance is only human input.

To support large colonies, need tobe living off land which means access to lot of low DV materials, eg moon surface or NEAs which is why Lagrange points are a good choice. Moon colony has materials under foot with gravity and radiation protection thrown in for free, only issue is high DV to earth, but cheap ISRU fuel can help over come this.

[Coastal Ron]

At some point we will build things in space, and maybe even used electron-beam welding, but we don't have to do that yet. Not when Blue Origin is offering payload volumes on New Glenn that would accommodate a cylindrical module 6m in diameter by 10m in length. That is a MASSIVE amount of room, and you can join as many of them together as you need. All made and outfitted on Earth, where it costs the least.

Why not do it that way?

To me, it just boils down to math.

Assuming that the assembly/welding method would be figured out and reliable, then:
Being generous, if you are using New Glenn, you can put a cylindrical module of 13.5m inner length and 6.1m inner diameter, which would give you roughly 260 m3 (but, as an advantage, fully equipped inside).

For my use cases that rely on New Glenn I standardize on 6m diameter and 10m lengths. But that's just me.

And as you point out with a single launch the module will likely contain all of the plumbing, all the electrical, and likely all of the equipment and furniture that would be required for that module. With one launch.

The concept has internal volume of over 2000 m3 and a single launch.

To get the same volume, you would need 8x more launches and space rendezvous, meaning each module would have to have hardware to be able to meet with the space station. It all ads so much more cost.

If all your customer wanted was a big aluminum ball in space, then yes, your idea may have some advantages. But whoever your customer is, if they want to live inside the big aluminum ball then you're going to have to send a crew up to the fully assembled & welded "concept" and spend thousands of hours outfitting the inside with plumbing, electrical, air handling, waste handling, power systems, and all the rest. Oh, then you need someone to inspect and certify it all works before occupation - unless you don't plan on certifying your habs for occupation, and just let your customers discover if there are any problems.

I will admit that I don't know how many launches would you need to equip the habitation module (the spherical part).

Not only don't you know how many launches it will take to ferry up everything that goes inside of your sphere, but you haven't taken into account the number of workers it will take, and for how long, to outfit the inside of your sphere.

Oh, and if you are using a standard Commercial Crew vehicle, you do realize that the NASA Docking System has a transfer passageway of only 800mm? Less than a meter in diameter, with your plan you have to design (or redesign) everything to fit through that small opening.

And for every delivery you have to trade off crew/assemblers and the material you need for outfitting. And then you need to take into account how long (months/years) it will take to outfit the inside of your sphere. There could be a lot of launches.

In contrast, cylindrical modules can be fully assembled and tested on the ground. So yes, one launch per module does add up from a volume standpoint, but since every module is fully outfitted they assemble into a larger vehicle much quicker.

So you really need to decide what you want to spend your time doing in space.

Oh, and don't worry, everyone starts out with an idea that needs to mature and evolve. So take this feedback and something that you will use to improve your idea. 

[Zed_Noir]

Don't think the Orb2 concept is good match for MEO, HEO or cislunar facilities as depicted in the video.

However if the concept is modified into building 2 spheres. Smaller one within ta larger one. Then in theory you can use the space in between for water tanks as radiation shielding. Of course you will have to ferry up the tonnes of water.

As I see it. One of the problem of habitable spherical orbital facilities is how to subdivided the internal compartments so that you can build and maintain them without costing too much in budget and man hours.

The really good use for the Orb2 concept is to build propellant storage tanks for orbit propellant depots. You don't need to outfitted the tank interior except for a bit plumbing. For propellant storage you want the least tank surface area to tank volume.

[Eric Hedman]

There will be no 'colonies' on the Moon or Cislunar space within the lifetimes of anyone reading this post.

While I have no idea if this will be true or not, if a fifteen year-old is reading this and ends up living to 95 that is an 80 year gap to be certain about.  Just imagine how different the world is now from eighty years ago.  Nobody knows what kind of industries will grow up in cislunar space in that time or if that will spawn colonies for workers and their families.  Eighty years from now I wouldn't rule out a toroidal ring at L5 big enough for a colony to develop.  The end of this century is just to far into the future to make an absolute statement like that with certainty.

[MATTBLAK]

Perhaps I shouldn't have thrown out there such a broad statement. Because its a subject I'm more than happy to be wrong about someday. I may have been speaking more for myself and my generation - I'm in my mid-fifties. It is true that a 'Colony' may be far more feasible on Mars than on the Moon or in Cislunar space (O'Neill habitat etc). The best place for Habitat infrastructure must surely be on the surface of a world such as Mars or the Moon.

But in some ways - things are moving both fast - and slow - at the same time. Even with SpaceX; access to space still costs a lot of money. And 'government space' - NASA, ESA etc - the traditional technological space pathfinders are still slow and reluctant to invest in and push forwards full reusability, In-Situ Resource Utilization, artificial gravity Habs for deep space travel, propellant depots and in-space propellant transfer. Only Elon Musk and SpaceX are willing to go for some of this literally game-changing, mission-enabling methods and technologies. Also; I think nuclear power and propulsion has got to come onboard with operational Astronautics at some point. Chemical and Solar - while still not currently being used to their full potential - will eventually hit a technical and logistical 'brick wall'.

The Future is running late and things will never happen quick enough for 'Space Geeks' like me. Blue Origin is still too glacially slow, as well - which frustrates me. But whatever will be, will be. Just don't count on 'Colonies' of hundreds, nay thousands living on the Moon and Mars for at least another Generation, maybe two. Like I said - I'm happy to be wrong about that. I reserve the right to be skeptical and to chafe at the mainstream media's premature use of the term 'Space Colony'

[Cererean]

A colony may be easier to build on Mars from a physical standpoint, but Luna is probably easier from an economic one. I think there's a good (>5%) chance that we could see  small Lunar city in the next couple of decades, with an economy driven by tourism and mining (the two things, other than transport, which justify operations out in the ocean today - cruise ships, oil platforms, fishing fleets). If it's built, some people may choose to move to Shackleton City permanently... and maybe some will have children there, making it officially a colony. Maybe not a self-sustaining colony, maybe not even a successful one (remember Greenland), but a colony nonetheless.

On the other hand, it could turn out to be easy to partially terraform Mars (~80mb CO2, liquid water) with mirrors, in which case we could see a rush to homestead the planet, which would be far easier to do.

[MATTBLAK]

I'd probably rather live on the Moon when I'm elderly - nice light gravity! As for Mars; I've not seen the point of terraforming it, really. We can build monstrous sports stadiums on Earth - I'd rather see monster pressurized domes over some big craters on Mars, due to its relatively light gravity and relative abundance of water. Thickening the atmosphere with more CO2 would not be so bad as it should aid entry, descent and landing for spacecraft by better use of parachutes and other aerofoils, not to mention improving radiation protection for the surface inhabitants.

[Cererean]

It would also allow large, unpressurised farming domes (and canals!), making everything far easier to do.

It's the Pareto principle. We gain a majority of the benefit from a minority of the effort. Getting Mars to the point of human surface habitability is far harder than getting it to the point where it's habitable for life, and at that latter point, we can (eventually) get free oxygen from the atmosphere, grow food out on the surface, or in simple greenhouses, and walk around with just a breathing mask and warm clothing.

Maybe there's enough CO2 in the regolith for mirrors to drive it out...

But as far as the first colony is concerned, I think it will be Shackleton City. Luna will have private enterprise - hotels, mining operations, shipyards, possibly retirement homes - while Mars is still in the Antarctica stage of scientific bases. As I see it, it will start with ice mining, then hotels and possibly nickel mining from the regolith (especially if we build a railgun or elevator to make shipping resources homeward a lot cheaper), and then will reach the point where there will be dedicated apartments for people who want to move there full time. By which point the farms will have told us everything we need to know about how gestation copes with 1/6th gravity.

[Coastal Ron]

A colony may be easier to build on Mars from a physical standpoint, but Luna is probably easier from an economic one. I think there's a good (>5%) chance that we could see  small Lunar city in the next couple of decades, with an economy driven by tourism and mining...

Mining is an industry that leads the way into undeveloped areas. Tourism is not. Tourism relies on infrastructure that is already in place, with workers able to be found in the local economy. That will NOT be the situation on the Moon anytime soon.

As to mining, mining what? And don't say Helium 3, because there is zero demand for that here on Earth. And don't say propellant, because even though that would have demand, it is local demand, so it would not be producing GDP, just offsetting the amount of money needing to be invested from Earth.

This is the same situation for cislunar space as a whole - there currently isn't a business model that supports spending $X amount to move humans out into space. Elon Musk isn't counting on a business model to colonize Mars, he is treating Mars colonization as a humanitarian effort, which includes people paying their own way there.

And I say this as someone that has spent a number of years working on designs for rotating space stations. I know that unless I can identify WHY someone would want to spend money to be on a rotating space station, that it will never get built. There has to be a clear ROI for the $Billions it will take, but so far there isn't. Which is OK, since there is still work to do on my designs, but I like to think there is a potential future need.

So the bottom line is that we don't need to solve the business case question for now, we can work on ideas that enable business cases when they appear. But we do need to clear eyed about what those potential business models could be, whether they are purely business oriented or those that involve humanitarian efforts (i.e. spend without a direct ROI).

Which is why when we work on our various ideas, we should always have an initial customer in mind. Since that will help us understand if what we are designing actually meets a potential need.

My $0.02

[Cererean]

Tourism relies on infrastructure that is already in place, with workers able to be found in the local economy.

Not on cruise ships, which is the most comparable situation for space tourism.

Depending on the structure of the regolith, Lunar nickel mining may be an option. We would probably need a railgun or elevator to make it economical, though. If there are grains with abundant nickel-iron, it will be a lot easier to exploit than if it's evenly mixed into a glass.

None of these ideas are likely to pencil out at current costs, though. We really need some means to ship bulk cargo - plastic, water, metal, food - cheaply (<<$100/kg) to orbit, like a railgun. Mounted on a stratospheric airship.

[Coastal Ron]

Tourism relies on infrastructure that is already in place, with workers able to be found in the local economy.

Not on cruise ships, which is the most comparable situation for space tourism.

The cruise industry today has two major activities that passengers engage in:

1. Activities on the ship
2. Activities off of the ship

For #2, you have to have local infrastructure that is robust enough to absorb the cruise ship passengers that come to shore. You may not see it, but there are many people ashore that allow a cruise ship to dock and to provide the passengers with shore experiences. You can't do that in space until you have colonies, since where are those workers going to live, and where will their families live, and where will the workers (& their families) that support the cruise industry workers live?

For #1, if the activities on the space cruise ship don't depend on landing on the Moon, then they don't even have to travel to the Moon to get the same experiences. For instance, the mother of a friend of mine loves to eat on cruises, but that doesn't change with the destination - same food at the home port as in the middle of the cruise.

More importantly, the population that would go on such a cruise is very small. Most of the people that do cruises today would not be physically fit enough to launch into space, and they likely wouldn't want to go after finding out about the safety training they have to do. Remember space is not a safe place yet for civilians, and likely won't be for decades, so this is NOT a near term activity.

Depending on the structure of the regolith, Lunar nickel mining may be an option. We would probably need a railgun or elevator to make it economical, though. If there are grains with abundant nickel-iron, it will be a lot easier to exploit than if it's evenly mixed into a glass.

We have plenty of nickel here on Earth. Why would someone pay more for nickel mined on the Moon?

Everyone has ideas, and that is fine. But not everyone has scaleable business ideas, and that is what we need to support the expansion of humanity out into space.

[TrevorMonty]

The big unknown with Moon or Mars colonies is how lower gravity will affect us. I'm guessing living on Moon or Mars for couple years won't result in long term health issues like 0g does. A life time and most importantly raising children is big unknown.

Tourism, research and mining should be enough to support lunar settlement without worrying about having to raise children. If low gravity is issue for long term stay then we will need large artificial gravity structures for raising children. Oneil Cylinders will need huge amount of materials and massive in space mining and construction industry to build them with Moon base being critically element till first one is built. Materials can come from NEAs which means large robotic fleet or alternatively Moon with use of mass driver eg railgun or spinlaunch.

[Coastal Ron]

The big unknown with Moon or Mars colonies is how lower gravity will affect us.

Yes, and so far there is no one that appears to want to invest money to figure this out. No doubt once humans are spending long periods of time on the Moon or Mars there will be scientists that will volunteer to do research, but I don't think anyone will pay to do that type of research on a rotating space station beforehand. Which is sad, since I have a design that could be such a platform... 

I'm guessing living on Moon or Mars for couple years won't result in long term health issues like 0g does. A life time and most importantly raising children is big unknown.

We have baselines for humans that we'll be able to compare for 6 months and beyond, so I think we will get early indications how low gravity affects human anatomy.

Tourism, research and mining should be enough to support lunar settlement without worrying about having to raise children.

Mining what, for who? ISRU will be very important for local demand, but there is no known export market to provide financial income. At best it would help to offset expenditures by lowering the amount needing to be imported.

As for tourism, I've expressed by feeling about previously. However, the Moon is 1,000X further away from Earth than LEO is, so to get an idea about the tourism potential of the Moon just take the current tourism revenue (as of the past 12 months) and multiply it by 1,000X... 

If low gravity is issue for long term stay then we will need large artificial gravity structures for raising children. Oneil Cylinders will need huge amount of materials and massive in space mining and construction industry to build them with Moon base being critically element till first one is built. Materials can come from NEAs which means large robotic fleet or alternatively Moon with use of mass driver eg railgun or spinlaunch.

Going to be decades before we work up to O'Neill cylinders...

[RDoc]

The big unknown with Moon or Mars colonies is how lower gravity will affect us. I'm guessing living on Moon or Mars for couple years won't result in long term health issues like 0g does. A life time and most importantly raising children is big unknown.

Tourism, research and mining should be enough to support lunar settlement without worrying about having to raise children. If low gravity is issue for long term stay then we will need large artificial gravity structures for raising children. Oneil Cylinders will need huge amount of materials and massive in space mining and construction industry to build them with Moon base being critically element till first one is built. Materials can come from NEAs which means large robotic fleet or alternatively Moon with use of mass driver eg railgun or spinlaunch.

We can guess all we want, but until we actually do some long term research, it's just a guess. So far the only data points we have on living at other than 1.0 G are pretty terrible though. Conceiving, birthing and raising children IMHO can't be done by just trying, unless you're cool with Joseph Mengle's work.

What conceivable mining operation on the Moon could even come within an order of magnitude of breaking even? At what? $50M, $100M per person, I'm pretty doubtful there are going to be a lot of Lunar tourists.

[RDoc]

You can't have a large growing population in space without solving the radiation problem and the gravity problem.

I think I disagree with both statements there. I am not necessarily talking about everyone living and working in space. I am talking about people in good physical shape, productive age who live & work there for a year(s) but in hundreds, commercially. The goal would be to build enough expertise and industry in LEO that would allow you to eventually build those large rotating habitats.

Radiation in LEO is not a big deal for a year or two. Neither is gravity, if you follow the workout procedures.

Scott Kelly doesn't agree with you on zero G.

And what would the commercial industry that would employ hundreds (or tens) of people in space? I'm not aware of anything that could be done commercially there that would require human participation apart from national prestige projects.

[TrevorMonty]

You can't have a large growing population in space without solving the radiation problem and the gravity problem.

I think I disagree with both statements there. I am not necessarily talking about everyone living and working in space. I am talking about people in good physical shape, productive age who live &amp; work there for a year(s) but in hundreds, commercially. The goal would be to build enough expertise and industry in LEO that would allow you to eventually build those large rotating habitats.

Radiation in LEO is not a big deal for a year or two. Neither is gravity, if you follow the workout procedures.

Scott Kelly doesn't agree with you on zero G.

And what would the commercial industry that would employ hundreds (or tens) of people in space? I'm not aware of anything that could be done commercially there that would require human participation apart from national prestige projects.

Scott was disciplined astronaut that spent hours a day exercising and still had complications, average space worker isn't going spend same effort exercising.

[Cererean]

What conceivable mining operation on the Moon could even come within an order of magnitude of breaking even? At what? $50M, $100M per person, I'm pretty doubtful there are going to be a lot of Lunar tourists.

Let's be honest - if costs remain that high, *no* operation is going to be breaking even. We need a couple of orders of magnitude reduction in costs before expansion becomes viable.

On the other hand, it's energetically far more favourable to send cargo from Luna to Terra, than the other way round. So mining operations have that going for them at least. But we're going to need railguns for the big stuff. Though, if we could find a large still somewhat intact nickel-iron meteorite, we could get the platinum and gold and other precious metals. There should be enough water to export those.

[Coastal Ron]

What conceivable mining operation on the Moon could even come within an order of magnitude of breaking even? At what? $50M, $100M per person, I'm pretty doubtful there are going to be a lot of Lunar tourists.

Let's be honest - if costs remain that high, *no* operation is going to be breaking even. We need a couple of orders of magnitude reduction in costs before expansion becomes viable.

Reducing space transportation costs is essential to allowing companies and organizations to experiment on new business models.

On the other hand, it's energetically far more favourable to send cargo from Luna to Terra, than the other way round. So mining operations have that going for them at least.

That is the type of experimentation that lower transportation costs allow. The other is extensive robotic operations, which people don't talk about much, but robotic workers & systems cost FAR less than humans.

Though, if we could find a large still somewhat intact nickel-iron meteorite, we could get the platinum and gold and other precious metals. There should be enough water to export those.

None of that is needed on Earth. But it would be valuable for growing colonies off of Earth...

[TrevorMonty]

LCROSS detected high levels of gold in polar craters. Theory is fine dust is lifted into atomsphere (if you can call it that) by electrostatic electricity due to solar activity.  Then drops out in PSR hence accumulation over millions of years.

Google Warren Platts he is member, there is a thread or two related to subject.

NB 1mt of gold is worth $55M so it maybe worthwhile, especially if using ISRU fuel to return it to earth. If it can be delivered to LEO then crew capsules or SS can return it to earth, should have plenty of surplus downmass capacity.

As with every thing on moon, becomes cheaper the more infrastructure there is. Just need that initial foot hold to expand from.

[Cererean]

None of that is needed on Earth.

That doesn't matter, as long as there's someone on Earth willing to pay enough for it to cover the cost of the mining operation and make a profit. Yes, Earthers don't *need* a large amount of gold or platinum, but if they want it badly enough....

[TrevorMonty]

None of that is needed on Earth.

That doesn't matter, as long as there's someone on Earth willing to pay enough for it to cover the cost of the mining operation and make a profit. Yes, Earthers don't *need* a large amount of gold or platinum, but if they want it badly enough....

100mt year wouldn't make a dent in annual 4000mt market, but its worth $5.5b. Pays for lot of lunar infrastructure

[DistantTemple]

you just need to borrow the $5.5Bn to start to build the infrastructure, to start to recover the gold, before you can eventually sell it and break even? Oh, well maybe not break even, perhaps make the mortgage payment. Ok OK thats not how financing works! I agree is would be a useful sum... but...

[high road]

A colony may be easier to build on Mars from a physical standpoint, but Luna is probably easier from an economic one. I think there's a good (>5%) chance that we could see  small Lunar city in the next couple of decades, with an economy driven by tourism and mining...

As to mining, mining what? And don't say Helium 3, because there is zero demand for that here on Earth. And don't say propellant, because even though that would have demand, it is local demand, so it would not be producing GDP, just offsetting the amount of money needing to be invested from Earth.

Gems and minerals that form by geological processes that are unique to the moon (or wherever). Or maybe just formed on the moon/wherever. People pay orders of magnitude more for bottled water than tapwater, even in regions where it's perfectly fine to drink. So adding the label 'from the moon/wherever' is bound to increase the price of things that are already luxury items.

What gems/minerals and what processes? Well, more research is needed to see if they even exist. Research is the only humanitarian effort that makes sense in space, IMO.

Probably not a very big market, but definitely a pathfinder industry that would mature technology and infrastructure for subsequent industries.

This is the same situation for cislunar space as a whole - there currently isn't a business model that supports spending $X amount to move humans out into space. Elon Musk isn't counting on a business model to colonize Mars, he is treating Mars colonization as a humanitarian effort, which includes people paying their own way there.

Well yeah, but we haven't even worked out how to run a suborbital space tourism venture, P2P transportation, a commercial space lab etc. Kind of hard to cobble together a business case if you don't even have tried and tested examples of such less complex ventures.

A colony may be easier to build on Mars from a physical standpoint, but Luna is probably easier from an economic one.

And from a logistical standpoint. Building infrastructure 0.5 to 2.5 years away from any unforeseen supplies is not easy.

Tourism relies on infrastructure that is already in place, with workers able to be found in the local economy.

Not on cruise ships, which is the most comparable situation for space tourism.

That combination of luxury and comfort is very, very expensive to implement in space. I think Mount Everest climbing would be more comparable: very expensive, and quite dangerous. Probably not a big economic activity IMO, but already a gating industry with Starship's moon mission partially funding Starship's development.

None of that is needed on Earth. But it would be valuable for growing colonies off of Earth...

So what do those colonies/settlements do so they can even pay for luxury items like precious metals? (or to grow to a scale where the can use enough of these in industrial processes that it makes commercial sense to build an extraction plant for them on the moon? However, that point could be reached relatively early if the precious metals are gathered as a byproduct of fuel production or somesuch).

In your previous post, you had people pay for their own ticket there. So how do they pay for what they need when they're already there? If the humanitarian effort is to grow those colonies, why not let those colonies produce the precious metals locally, rather than import them from the moon?

Not intended as a snarky remark. Just pointing out that if economic sense isn't your driver, that impacts the choices for the infrastructure.

So as a response to the question in the title, here's how I see the present and near future:

1) cheaper, faster and easier access to space --> happening
2) Standardized platforms to reduce development costs of future ventures --> happening (think Photon)
3) Increasing number of economic ventures in space, using existing technology --> starting
4) figure out how to build and run a commercial space lab to facilitate early development of new space ventures (think tethers unlimited, 3d printing, fiberoptics, ...)
5) mature the aforementioned technologies (and new ones) and launch dedicated production infrastructure
6) with increasing infrastructure in LEO, on-orbit refueling should become a thing
7) with on orbit refueling, you've officially got a product that could be purchased more cheaply from the moon. Any waste produced doing so that costs less on Earth than transporting it here, will also be an export product.

However, before 7, you will already need to have detailed geological knowledge of the material you need to extract, and you need to mature that extraction and refinement technology to produce fuel on the moon. This means a research station (let's call it a humanitarian effort) will be needed, as that extra cost would dwarf the initial orbital refueling market.

after 7, the growing market will expose new needs that don't exist yet, more demand for stuff in LEO, and it now makes more sense to do certain things locally (now that the infrastructure is there anyway). So after that, we should be over the hump, I hope.

I don't see a big niche for tourists (although there will be some) to bring in significant amounts of money, so I haven't included them. I think we'll see little more than the occasional barebones cruise on Starship (1), maybe a space station designed for touristy things in microgravity that can't be done on the regular Starship (4) and eventually even some spare rooms on the moon for the very motivated (

[high road]

you just need to borrow the $5.5Bn to start to build the infrastructure, to start to recover the gold, before you can eventually sell it and break even? Oh, well maybe not break even, perhaps make the mortgage payment. Ok OK thats not how financing works! I agree is would be a useful sum... but...

This is also not how financing works. Every platinum mine has to invest to start extracting, and it takes several years to earn back the investment.

You need to compare the money needed to build a mine/refinery that can put out 100mt (or x) on Earth, and then compare it to what it would cost to build a mine/refinery that can put out 100mt (or x) on the moon. That includes searching for locations with high concentrations, which is quite more expensive on the moon than on Earth.

Then, estimate the profit margin (with transportation costs, operating costs and logistics being far more expensive on the moon) so you find out what your earnback period is. (not yet including any interest rates or dividends for investors).

With all that, convince enough people to invest in you, rather than in a conventional platinum mine.

However, if you already have a base on the moon that is already operating anyway, and you're just looking for an activity to alleviate some of those running costs, that's a totally different calculation.

[DistantTemple]

...  and you're just looking for an activity to alleviate some of those running costs, ...

v. briefly
y 2 all.
... or get other ppl interested carrying out such industry.

[high road]

...  and you're just looking for an activity to alleviate some of those running costs, ...

v. briefly
y 2 all.
... or get other ppl interested carrying out such industry.

Other than their cost estimates dropping significantly, no. These others still need to convince investors. And they still need to be able to sell their product without being accused of unfair competition if they don't have to pay these investors back.

However, if you're doing it to reduce the existing operational cost of a moon base, you don't need to compare it to similar activities on Earth, and you can likely get a waiver that you're not really a commercial entity. (You would still have to convince the people controlling the purse strings, but that's a whole other ball game).

[LMT]

LCROSS detected high levels of gold in polar craters.

Some counterpoints:

1.  The LCROSS Centaur impactor contained gold foil.

2.  Meteoritic debris has more platinum than gold, but platinum wasn't detected in the vapor plume.

3.  Boron has higher boiling point than platinum, and was detected.

[TrevorMonty]

LCROSS detected high levels of gold in polar craters.

Some counterpoints:

1.  The LCROSS Centaur impactor contained gold foil.

2.  Meteoritic debris has more platinum than gold, but platinum wasn't detected in the vapor plume.

3.  Boron has higher boiling point than platinum, and was detected.

They accounted for foil. I don't think platinum migrations like gold dust does. At this stage its a theory until some PSR material can be examined by robot.

[LMT]

LCROSS detected high levels of gold in polar craters.

Some counterpoints:

1.  The LCROSS Centaur impactor contained gold foil.

2.  Meteoritic debris has more platinum than gold, but platinum wasn't detected in the vapor plume.

3.  Boron has higher boiling point than platinum, and was detected.

They accounted for foil. I don't think platinum migrations like gold dust does. At this stage its a theory until some PSR material can be examined by robot.

I don't think they accounted for it, but discovered it afterward.  Controlled lab experiments could check the contamination effect, but yes, sample analysis would be more informative.

Au and Pt are adjacent transition metals, both conductors, with similar densities and electronegativities.  I'd think particles of either should be electrostatically active.  How to mobilize one, and not the other?

Also, it's worth noting that in the decade after LCROSS, no asteroid-mining startup proposed a follow-up lunar assay lander, in hope of lunar gold claim.  Or has there been such a proposal?

[Coastal Ron]

A colony may be easier to build on Mars from a physical standpoint, but Luna is probably easier from an economic one. I think there's a good (>5%) chance that we could see  small Lunar city in the next couple of decades, with an economy driven by tourism and mining...

As to mining, mining what? And don't say Helium 3, because there is zero demand for that here on Earth. And don't say propellant, because even though that would have demand, it is local demand, so it would not be producing GDP, just offsetting the amount of money needing to be invested from Earth.

Gems and minerals that form by geological processes that are unique to the moon (or wherever). Or maybe just formed on the moon/wherever. People pay orders of magnitude more for bottled water than tapwater, even in regions where it's perfectly fine to drink. So adding the label 'from the moon/wherever' is bound to increase the price of things that are already luxury items.

Fiji Water is a good example of this, but personally I only used to buy it for the square bottles (they fit in my backpack pockets very nicely). Otherwise bottled water is a commodity, and you have to compete on price. As for gems from the Moon, how do you keep counterfeiters out? You can't, not in the volumes you'd need to make money on the endeavor.

None of that is needed on Earth. But it would be valuable for growing colonies off of Earth...

So what do those colonies/settlements do so they can even pay for luxury items like precious metals? (or to grow to a scale where the can use enough of these in industrial processes that it makes commercial sense to build an extraction plant for them on the moon? However, that point could be reached relatively early if the precious metals are gathered as a byproduct of fuel production or somesuch).

In your previous post, you had people pay for their own ticket there. So how do they pay for what they need when they're already there? If the humanitarian effort is to grow those colonies, why not let those colonies produce the precious metals locally, rather than import them from the moon?

Not intended as a snarky remark. Just pointing out that if economic sense isn't your driver, that impacts the choices for the infrastructure.

Elon Musk is treating the colonization of Mars like a humanitarian effort. He is spending his own money, and the profits of a company he is the majority stakeholder of (i.e. SpaceX), to "get the ball rolling" so to speak. But he knows he can't do it all by himself, which is why he expects colonists to pay their own way.

So to answer two of your questions:

1. As a humanitarian effort I expect some subset of people on Earth (me included) will donate to the cause. So the whole thing will be funded, to some degree, by those going and those supporting those going, which could be the public, private companies, and even governments. It will take a LOT of money, for generations.

2. In order to reduce the amount of money that will be needed, one way is to reduce the amount of material that needs to be shipped to the colony for support and growth. That can be done with in situ resource utilization (ISRU), and the material mined, refined, or created on Mars will be more valuable ON MARS than it will be on any market back on Earth. :

Elon Musk: "Well I think any natural resource extraction on Mars would be, the output would be for Mars. It definitely wouldn't make sense to transport stuff 200 million miles back to Earth. You know, honestly, if you had like crack cocaine on Mars, like in pre-packaged palets, it still wouldn't make sense to transport it back here. Maybe good times for the Martians, but not back here."

[LMT]

...material mined, refined, or created on Mars will be more valuable ON MARS than it will be on any market back on Earth.

With notable exception of martian precious metals.

But returning to cislunar space...

[high road]

A colony may be easier to build on Mars from a physical standpoint, but Luna is probably easier from an economic one. I think there's a good (>5%) chance that we could see  small Lunar city in the next couple of decades, with an economy driven by tourism and mining...

As to mining, mining what? And don't say Helium 3, because there is zero demand for that here on Earth. And don't say propellant, because even though that would have demand, it is local demand, so it would not be producing GDP, just offsetting the amount of money needing to be invested from Earth.

Gems and minerals that form by geological processes that are unique to the moon (or wherever). Or maybe just formed on the moon/wherever. People pay orders of magnitude more for bottled water than tapwater, even in regions where it's perfectly fine to drink. So adding the label 'from the moon/wherever' is bound to increase the price of things that are already luxury items.

Fiji Water is a good example of this, but personally I only used to buy it for the square bottles (they fit in my backpack pockets very nicely). Otherwise bottled water is a commodity, and you have to compete on price. As for gems from the Moon, how do you keep counterfeiters out? You can't, not in the volumes you'd need to make money on the endeavor.

And still, any bottled water is orders of magnitude more expensive than tap water, even in my country where there is no difference in quality. And that's not even including water with 'straight from the source' which supposed health benefits, which is sold at even higher prices in tourist shops, or water with supposed magical properties, like Lourdes. Or bottles of Holy water. What price would people be willing to give for water that's never been touched by humans, or hasn't been dinosaur urine at some point in time? Regardless whether there's actually any merit to these claims.

Counterfeit is always a problem. But there are still brands, so I assume there are ways to mitigate this problem.

None of that is needed on Earth. But it would be valuable for growing colonies off of Earth...

So what do those colonies/settlements do so they can even pay for luxury items like precious metals? (or to grow to a scale where the can use enough of these in industrial processes that it makes commercial sense to build an extraction plant for them on the moon? However, that point could be reached relatively early if the precious metals are gathered as a byproduct of fuel production or somesuch).

In your previous post, you had people pay for their own ticket there. So how do they pay for what they need when they're already there? If the humanitarian effort is to grow those colonies, why not let those colonies produce the precious metals locally, rather than import them from the moon?

Not intended as a snarky remark. Just pointing out that if economic sense isn't your driver, that impacts the choices for the infrastructure.

Elon Musk is treating the colonization of Mars like a humanitarian effort. He is spending his own money, and the profits of a company he is the majority stakeholder of (i.e. SpaceX), to "get the ball rolling" so to speak. But he knows he can't do it all by himself, which is why he expects colonists to pay their own way.

So to answer two of your questions:

1. As a humanitarian effort I expect some subset of people on Earth (me included) will donate to the cause. So the whole thing will be funded, to some degree, by those going and those supporting those going, which could be the public, private companies, and even governments. It will take a LOT of money, for generations.

2. In order to reduce the amount of money that will be needed, one way is to reduce the amount of material that needs to be shipped to the colony for support and growth. That can be done with in situ resource utilization (ISRU), and the material mined, refined, or created on Mars will be more valuable ON MARS than it will be on any market back on Earth. :

Elon Musk: "Well I think any natural resource extraction on Mars would be, the output would be for Mars. It definitely wouldn't make sense to transport stuff 200 million miles back to Earth. You know, honestly, if you had like crack cocaine on Mars, like in pre-packaged palets, it still wouldn't make sense to transport it back here. Maybe good times for the Martians, but not back here."

Ah yes, that was the interview where he simultaneously said that a ticket to Mars would cost about 500,000 dollars, but they can't bring back prepackaged crack at a profit. Admittedly, not in the same sentence  ;-) so Elon apparently has a fixer who asks less than 5 bucks per gram of crack. :p now we know where he gets his inspiration. And that's when comparing Starships going empty one way and transporting a human being isn't volume limited and everything needed to keep them alive and their own mass is a mere 100 kg.

How about the clip where he says the way back is 'essentially free' because they need those ships back? Any material that has a considerable value on Earth but can't be processed easily enough or has little use on Mars because the size of the settlement isn't big enough yet, is going to be cheaper to bring back even while importing the finished product made from it. That's what I meant with the calculation being entirely different. Doesn't matter if it's the moon or Mars. Rather than asking 'does it make more sense to do x on the moon/Mars rather than on Earth', the question becomes 'given existing underused assets (eg fuel production, spacecraft returning empty, x may be a waste resource of another production process), does it cost less to invest in producing x and sending it back to Earth to sell at market price and use said money to buy y, versus investing in producing y locally'. Once high throughput commodities like fuel, staple foodstuff, oxygen, water, construction steel, Mars/lunarcrete, copper wire, simple plastics etc are produced locally, there are still an enormous diversity of products that will have to be imported.

[Coastal Ron]

...material mined, refined, or created on Mars will be more valuable ON MARS than it will be on any market back on Earth.

With notable exception of martian precious metals.

But returning to cislunar space...

There is no demonstrated market for elements common across our solar system having a higher demand just because they are sourced from a location other than Earth.

For instance, 78% of the gold consumed each year is used in the manufacture of jewelry. But the jewelry market already has alloys of gold that range from white (silver alloy) to red (copper alloy), along with the pure gold color. There is nothing you can import from Mars that will be unique or different from what is already available here on Earth.

As to the other 22% of the market, they are industrial, and they only care for pure gold at the lowest price.

So all of this bolsters my point that the best use for material mined and refined on Mars, will be ON MARS.

[Coastal Ron]

Fiji Water is a good example of this, but personally I only used to buy it for the square bottles (they fit in my backpack pockets very nicely). Otherwise bottled water is a commodity, and you have to compete on price. As for gems from the Moon, how do you keep counterfeiters out? You can't, not in the volumes you'd need to make money on the endeavor.

And still, any bottled water is orders of magnitude more expensive than tap water, even in my country where there is no difference in quality. And that's not even including water with 'straight from the source' which supposed health benefits, which is sold at even higher prices in tourist shops, or water with supposed magical properties, like Lourdes. Or bottles of Holy water. What price would people be willing to give for water that's never been touched by humans, or hasn't been dinosaur urine at some point in time? Regardless whether there's actually any merit to these claims.

Counterfeit is always a problem. But there are still brands, so I assume there are ways to mitigate this problem.

You may assume that, but counterfeiting is a constant global problem, and even the diamond trade has a major problem with it. So if you can't stop counterfeit Gucci bags, how are you going to stop counterfeit gems which require some sort of laboratory test in order to validate if they are what they say they are?

Bottom line is that if you are relying on marketing to distinguish the value of your product, it doesn't matter where it is sourced from. Which means Mars products can't be a dependable source of income.

Elon Musk: "Well I think any natural resource extraction on Mars would be, the output would be for Mars. It definitely wouldn't make sense to transport stuff 200 million miles back to Earth. You know, honestly, if you had like crack cocaine on Mars, like in pre-packaged palets, it still wouldn't make sense to transport it back here. Maybe good times for the Martians, but not back here."

...How about the clip where he says the way back is 'essentially free' because they need those ships back?

People that paid to get to Mars have a free return trip.

Any material that has a considerable value on Earth but can't be processed easily enough or has little use on Mars because the size of the settlement isn't big enough yet, is going to be cheaper to bring back even while importing the finished product made from it. That's what I meant with the calculation being entirely different.

And what would this theoretical material be?

Doesn't matter if it's the moon or Mars. Rather than asking 'does it make more sense to do x on the moon/Mars rather than on Earth', the question becomes 'given existing underused assets (eg fuel production, spacecraft returning empty, x may be a waste resource of another production process), does it cost less to invest in producing x and sending it back to Earth to sell at market price and use said money to buy y, versus investing in producing y locally'.

Here in the U.S. our oil production capabilities are dependent on world prices, and up until recently there was stability in the marketplace that allowed the extraction of hard to get oil using the newish technology called fracking. But the cost of extraction in the U.S. is still far higher than it is in Russia and Saudi Arabia, and the recent oil war just wiped out a lot of oil extraction companies here in the U.S.

You can't build a new world if the economics of your new world are tied to the commodity prices of another world. That gives your customers too much control over you, and believe me they will utilize that to their benefit.

No, when Mars is colonized it will need to create an economy that while requiring capital support from Earth, it is building up a local economy that is insulated from Earth.

If anything this pandemic has shown how colonies on Mars (and everywhere else) need to have the ability sustain themselves to a certain degree when the Earth goes through economic recessions and depressions. And that can't be through export to Earth since there will always be too much competition.

[high road]

...material mined, refined, or created on Mars will be more valuable ON MARS than it will be on any market back on Earth.

With notable exception of martian precious metals.

But returning to cislunar space...

There is no demonstrated market for elements common across our solar system having a higher demand just because they are sourced from a location other than Earth.

For instance, 78% of the gold consumed each year is used in the manufacture of jewelry. But the jewelry market already has alloys of gold that range from white (silver alloy) to red (copper alloy), along with the pure gold color. There is nothing you can import from Mars that will be unique or different from what is already available here on Earth.

As to the other 22% of the market, they are industrial, and they only care for pure gold at the lowest price.

So all of this bolsters my point that the best use for material mined and refined on Mars, will be ON MARS.

Think gemstones, not materials that are ground or smelted. Things that need specific geological processes to form. Mars and the moon have had other geological processes, who knows what we might find. Maybe nothing, there's always that chance. Just saying it's possible.

Graphite and diamonds are the same element, but their price is a little different. Industrial diamonds are cheaper too. Does it make sense to get them from the moon/Mars if they exist here? Not if that's the raison d'être of the settlement. But if their market price is higher than the extra effort it takes (expressed in stuff you need to import from earth to sustain that activity on Mars), yeah, that does mitigate costs more than trying to produce relatively complex things that you don't need massive amounts of. (So everything not on my list in the other post)

And most of the gold that's produced, isn't even consumed, but stockpiled in bars. For the foreseeable future, Earth is the only place that can afford to pay exorbitant amounts of money for stuff it doesn't really have a use for.

Other ideas for Mars (although OT): not a large industry, but you could probably bring back some fossilized remains from the time it had water. As long as the supply remains limited, the price per kg would be quite big. Plenty of collectors around, even after researchers have had their chance to study enough of them.

[Coastal Ron]

...material mined, refined, or created on Mars will be more valuable ON MARS than it will be on any market back on Earth.

With notable exception of martian precious metals.

But returning to cislunar space...

There is no demonstrated market for elements common across our solar system having a higher demand just because they are sourced from a location other than Earth.

For instance, 78% of the gold consumed each year is used in the manufacture of jewelry. But the jewelry market already has alloys of gold that range from white (silver alloy) to red (copper alloy), along with the pure gold color. There is nothing you can import from Mars that will be unique or different from what is already available here on Earth.

As to the other 22% of the market, they are industrial, and they only care for pure gold at the lowest price.

So all of this bolsters my point that the best use for material mined and refined on Mars, will be ON MARS.

Think gemstones, not materials that are ground or smelted. And most of the gold that's produced, isn't even consumed, but stockpiled.

Stating there are $Billion markets for random things is not proof that there truly is real demand. Nor do you have any idea what the production costs will be, which dictates what the export pricing is.

[high road]

...material mined, refined, or created on Mars will be more valuable ON MARS than it will be on any market back on Earth.

With notable exception of martian precious metals.

But returning to cislunar space...

There is no demonstrated market for elements common across our solar system having a higher demand just because they are sourced from a location other than Earth.

For instance, 78% of the gold consumed each year is used in the manufacture of jewelry. But the jewelry market already has alloys of gold that range from white (silver alloy) to red (copper alloy), along with the pure gold color. There is nothing you can import from Mars that will be unique or different from what is already available here on Earth.

As to the other 22% of the market, they are industrial, and they only care for pure gold at the lowest price.

So all of this bolsters my point that the best use for material mined and refined on Mars, will be ON MARS.

Think gemstones, not materials that are ground or smelted. And most of the gold that's produced, isn't even consumed, but stockpiled.

Stating there are $Billion markets for random things is not proof that there truly is real demand. Nor do you have any idea what the production costs will be, which dictates what the export pricing is.

I mention that in every post: it needs to cost less than the market price. But that there's a billion dollar market for existing things is absolutely proof that there's demand for that existing thing. At current market price. It's not proof that there will be demand for things we haven't found yet. There are plenty of materials on Earth that are not considered precious, even though they might be rare. Just trying to think positive here ;-)

Fiji Water is a good example of this, but personally I only used to buy it for the square bottles (they fit in my backpack pockets very nicely). Otherwise bottled water is a commodity, and you have to compete on price. As for gems from the Moon, how do you keep counterfeiters out? You can't, not in the volumes you'd need to make money on the endeavor.

And still, any bottled water is orders of magnitude more expensive than tap water, even in my country where there is no difference in quality. And that's not even including water with 'straight from the source' which supposed health benefits, which is sold at even higher prices in tourist shops, or water with supposed magical properties, like Lourdes. Or bottles of Holy water. What price would people be willing to give for water that's never been touched by humans, or hasn't been dinosaur urine at some point in time? Regardless whether there's actually any merit to these claims.

Counterfeit is always a problem. But there are still brands, so I assume there are ways to mitigate this problem.

You may assume that, but counterfeiting is a constant global problem, and even the diamond trade has a major problem with it. So if you can't stop counterfeit Gucci bags, how are you going to stop counterfeit gems which require some sort of laboratory test in order to validate if they are what they say they are?

Bottom line is that if you are relying on marketing to distinguish the value of your product, it doesn't matter where it is sourced from. Which means Mars products can't be a dependable source of income.

Exactly, counterfeit is always a problem (Intentionnaly repeating myself here). To take your example: even though there are other producers that make bags that look identical to Gucci, and are sometimes of the same quality, and sometimes come from the same factories (not sure if Gucci is one of these), at lower cost than Gucci, Gucci is still very succesful, even though there is no appreciable difference other than people wanting to own a 'real' Gucci. The very fact that it has a massive income, suggests it is not being crushed by those conterfeiters. Although I don't doubt that if everyone who buys counterfeit would buy their products instead, they would be massively more successful. At the same time, I doubt most of those would bother buying a real one if their was no cheaper alternative.

In the case of diamonds, serial numbers are used. That would be an affordable way to mitigate (not reduce to zero) counterfeit gemstones.

Elon Musk: "Well I think any natural resource extraction on Mars would be, the output would be for Mars. It definitely wouldn't make sense to transport stuff 200 million miles back to Earth. You know, honestly, if you had like crack cocaine on Mars, like in pre-packaged palets, it still wouldn't make sense to transport it back here. Maybe good times for the Martians, but not back here."

...How about the clip where he says the way back is 'essentially free' because they need those ships back?

People that paid to get to Mars have a free return trip.

Ah, so assuming everyone eventually returns (worst case scenario), that's 250000 for a single trip. Assuming next to no one returns (yay, hopefully), that's 500000 for a single trip. In the worst case scenario, there's no spare free space. In the other extreme, there's an empty starship flying back. As soon as there's a single person not coming back, and you have enough fuel production to send back a full Starship (and assuming that there's nothing you could have used that extra fuel for, or whatever went into making that fuel), it costs a grand total of 0$ to bring back prepackaged crack. Making that crack on Mars, or getting it through customs on Earth, is a whole other matter.

Any material that has a considerable value on Earth but can't be processed easily enough or has little use on Mars because the size of the settlement isn't big enough yet, is going to be cheaper to bring back even while importing the finished product made from it. That's what I meant with the calculation being entirely different.

And what would this theoretical material be?

Well, if the tailings of the water mining for the fuel production plant contain gold, gems or platinum group metals, refining those on a small scale could be relatively cheap per gram. Assuming (always assuming) there are people to do the job (that use resources to stay alive if they're productive or not, so no extra costs there), there's some safety margin on the fuel production output and ships are not returning fully loaded. Otherwise, costs skyrocket.

You would continue to load up your returning craft with these for a very long time (expressed in growth of the colony), until the colony is actually big enough that producing finished products locally out of those (which is far more difficult en thus expensive) makes sense.

It's quite simple:

- If your ships aren't coming back empty, your people are returning as fast as they are going. Your settlement fails. (or they have something to fill their ships with)
- If your fuel production is only big enough to send back mostly empty ships, that's a colony at high risk of failure as soon as something goes wrong. And something always goes wrong eventually. Your settlement fails.
- If it's possible to produce raw materials for your colony there, and given that both statements above are not fulfilled, you can send them back at 0 transportation cost to your colony. Other than the opportunity cost of what you could have done with that fuel or the energy that went into making that fuel. Or the extra hours of work, etc.
- If certain resources happen to have considerable value, as mentioned above, and if they are easy to collect (not having had people collect them for (tens of) thousands of years hopefully means there are some pretty decent locations), sending them back at 0 cost to your settlement, makes money. Money is your biggest problem when sustaining a Mars base.
- If these people could have been doing something that would allow you to reduce imports by more (per hour of labour) than producing this stuff on Mars brings in, then have them do that and do no export.
- At a certain point, given that your colony grows, it will reach a point where all high troughput goods are produced locally, but lots of stuff still needs to be imported (computers, high tech equipment, replacement parts, ...). Producing these locally is going to be far more difficult than digging up gold or platinum locally. Return to the previous statement.

Will you ever run a profitable operation? I don't really think so. But eventually, the colony might need to import less and less, and by doing so, reach a positive trade balance. But that's a big if.

Doesn't matter if it's the moon or Mars. Rather than asking 'does it make more sense to do x on the moon/Mars rather than on Earth', the question becomes 'given existing underused assets (eg fuel production, spacecraft returning empty, x may be a waste resource of another production process), does it cost less to invest in producing x and sending it back to Earth to sell at market price and use said money to buy y, versus investing in producing y locally'.

Here in the U.S. our oil production capabilities are dependent on world prices, and up until recently there was stability in the marketplace that allowed the extraction of hard to get oil using the newish technology called fracking. But the cost of extraction in the U.S. is still far higher than it is in Russia and Saudi Arabia, and the recent oil war just wiped out a lot of oil extraction companies here in the U.S.

You can't build a new world if the economics of your new world are tied to the commodity prices of another world. That gives your customers too much control over you, and believe me they will utilize that to their benefit.

No, when Mars is colonized it will need to create an economy that while requiring capital support from Earth, it is building up a local economy that is insulated from Earth.

If anything this pandemic has shown how colonies on Mars (and everywhere else) need to have the ability sustain themselves to a certain degree when the Earth goes through economic recessions and depressions. And that can't be through export to Earth since there will always be too much competition.

I see your point, but let's not forget the first export product of the first successful (eventually) English settlement was glass. There was no gold, and sweet tobacco wasn't cultivated there yet. Why glass? Because they had the means to do it, and it was just about the only thing they could do that would earn something to pay for further deliveries of supplies. Not because glass didn't exist back home. And that's on a world that has 'all resources to survive laying around'.

[LMT]

...material mined, refined, or created on Mars will be more valuable ON MARS than it will be on any market back on Earth.

With notable exception of martian precious metals.

There is no demonstrated market for elements common across our solar system having a higher demand [emphasis added] just because they are sourced from a location other than Earth.

Red Gold assumed no such thing:  only market price.

Don't tell an untrue story.

the way back is 'essentially free' because they need those ships back

Good observation.  And each ship could bring home 50 tons of precious-metal products.  Market price, as baseline.

Do you see the implications of geometric mine reinvestment?

[TrevorMonty]

The current space economy is based on exporting data to earth eg earth images, weather, satelite TV. That is still near term market.

Long term many of us Space Solar Power fans think that is future, which involves exporting energy. The power satellites would be built using ISRU from moon or NEA.
Space tourism has a import part to play in establishing CisLunar economy and help it grow. Other market is manufacturing of high value items in LEO from earth supplied raw materials.

With Mars I don't see business case for any of these markets.

Fusion could make SSP obsolete before it starts or make it cheaper as moving stuff around and operating in space would be cheaper.

[high road]

Let's not forget uranium and plutonium. Once we can extract/produce these in space for space (so still a way out), the biggest issue with nuclear power in space is gone. That'll make industries which require a lot of power more compact than big powersats.

[LMT]

Space tourism has a import part to play in establishing CisLunar economy...

A point e.g. for Marsliner cislunar tourism is that it could start shortly after Starships are certified, even in the 2020s.  It's quick Starship revenue that's logically reinvested in the first fleet, to the limit of tourism demand.

If that fleet eventually exceeds tourism demand, extra ships are repurposed elsewhere without waste of infrastructure.

[Coastal Ron]

...material mined, refined, or created on Mars will be more valuable ON MARS than it will be on any market back on Earth.

With notable exception of martian precious metals.

There is no demonstrated market for elements common across our solar system having a higher demand [emphasis added] just because they are sourced from a location other than Earth.

Red Gold assumed no such thing:  only market price.

Supply and demand go together. And you referencing another post you made doesn't make it any clearer what you mean.

the way back is 'essentially free' because they need those ships back

Good observation.  And each ship could bring home 50 tons of precious-metal products.  Market price, as baseline.

Do you see the implications of geometric mine reinvestment?

Actually a returning Starship won't have the ability to carry a full load of cargo, since for every kg of cargo you would need more than a kg of propellant to slow down and land on Earth. Earth requires far more propellant to land on than Mars requires.

And the main reason for returning a Starship from Mars is to be able to reuse it - which saves money that can ultimately make it more affordable to colonize Mars. So anything that complicates returning a Starship to Earth, like having to carry extra propellant because of extra cargo, is non-optimal.

[LMT]

...material mined, refined, or created on Mars will be more valuable ON MARS than it will be on any market back on Earth.

With notable exception of martian precious metals.

There is no demonstrated market for elements common across our solar system having a higher demand [emphasis added] just because they are sourced from a location other than Earth.

Red Gold assumed no such thing:  only market price.

Supply and demand go together. And you referencing another post you made doesn't make it any clearer what you mean.

Your talk about "higher demand" doesn't apply to Red Gold posts and revenue, plainly.  If you want to comment, review the posts.

[Coastal Ron]

...material mined, refined, or created on Mars will be more valuable ON MARS than it will be on any market back on Earth.

With notable exception of martian precious metals.

There is no demonstrated market for elements common across our solar system having a higher demand [emphasis added] just because they are sourced from a location other than Earth.

Red Gold assumed no such thing:  only market price.

Supply and demand go together. And you referencing another post you made doesn't make it any clearer what you mean.

Your talk about "higher demand" doesn't apply to Red Gold posts and revenue, plainly.  If you want to comment, review the posts.

Gold is gold. Calling it "Red Gold" is just marketing. Are you implying that there will be a market for gold that is mined on Mars?

And this is assuming that profitable deposits of gold can be found in the near-term on the surface of Mars, and that Mars miners would have the funding to set up mining and processing operations while they are trying to survive - just so they can ship the gold with a PR name to Earth.

I think we need to stick with reality...

[high road]

...material mined, refined, or created on Mars will be more valuable ON MARS than it will be on any market back on Earth.

With notable exception of martian precious metals.

There is no demonstrated market for elements common across our solar system having a higher demand [emphasis added] just because they are sourced from a location other than Earth.

Red Gold assumed no such thing:  only market price.

Supply and demand go together. And you referencing another post you made doesn't make it any clearer what you mean.

the way back is 'essentially free' because they need those ships back

Good observation.  And each ship could bring home 50 tons of precious-metal products.  Market price, as baseline.

Do you see the implications of geometric mine reinvestment?

Actually a returning Starship won't have the ability to carry a full load of cargo, since for every kg of cargo you would need more than a kg of propellant to slow down and land on Earth. Earth requires far more propellant to land on than Mars requires.

And the main reason for returning a Starship from Mars is to be able to reuse it - which saves money that can ultimately make it more affordable to colonize Mars. So anything that complicates returning a Starship to Earth, like having to carry extra propellant because of extra cargo, is non-optimal.

So no bringing back significant amounts of samples to study in earth labs then? Or aerobraking to slow down, so they can do the same landing as for P2P transport? These are supposed to be the things why Starship is a gamechanger... fuel is supposed to be the easy part. But ok, no full cargo on the return trip.

To your other post: if they're trying to survive, how are they setting up their own consumables production for themselves? Fuel production and plastics production requires mining. Marscrete production requires hauling large amounts of material. Copper wire for electricity requires mining and refining. Food production equipment will have to be imported from Earth for a while. No mining means no path to being less dependent from Earth. And with a group of highly intellectual people over there, they'll quickly figure out how to convert that equipment to other uses if they have any time to spare. Think gold divers and small time operations, not huge mining and refining plants.

[tbellman]

Actually a returning Starship won't have the ability to carry a full load of cargo, since for every kg of cargo you would need more than a kg of propellant to slow down and land on Earth. Earth requires far more propellant to land on than Mars requires.

So no bringing back significant amounts of samples to study in earth labs then? Or aerobraking to slow down, so they can do the same landing as for P2P transport? These are supposed to be the things why Starship is a gamechanger... fuel is supposed to be the easy part. But ok, no full cargo on the return trip.

Aerobraking will be used.  It is absolutely essential for descending to land on Earth.

Bringing back a few tonnes of samples should not be a problem on Starship.  But a few tens of tonnes might be.

Elon has said that they were planning for Starship to be able to land on Earth with 50 tonnes of cargo.  But I think that is less important than getting 100+ tonnes to Earth orbit, and to land with that on Mars and the Moon.  If they have problems, they will probably deprioritize downmass in favour of upmass, or flying soon.  And I don't think we on the outside know what engineering aspect that sets the return cargo limit on Starship, or if they will be able to bring 50 tonnes of cargo from Mars, not just from LEO, down to Earth.

[LMT]

this is assuming that profitable deposits of gold can be found in the near-term on the surface of Mars

Given Mars' E-belt impact-capture conditions,

and the nuclear spectroscopy that maps ore groupings from orbit,

the survey suggests itself.

But those are Mars posts, and this is cislunar.

[LMT]

I don't think we on the outside know what engineering aspect that sets the return cargo limit on Starship, or if they will be able to bring 50 tonnes of cargo from Mars, not just from LEO, down to Earth.

A Starship can aerocapture, e.g., to LEO; then EDL. 

Logically, that would be 50 tons delivered from beyond LEO, with no difference in "engineering aspects".

--

Many express doubts about 50 ton return, often just when multi-billion-dollar value is affixed. 

The reasoning is unsound, as we see above, and upthread, and elsewhere.  And it often appears just when there's significant commercial value.

I think it raises sociological questions, likely not allowed here.

[Owlon]

I don't think we on the outside know what engineering aspect that sets the return cargo limit on Starship, or if they will be able to bring 50 tonnes of cargo from Mars, not just from LEO, down to Earth.

A Starship can aerocapture, e.g., to LEO; then EDL. 

Logically, that would be 50 tons delivered from beyond LEO, with no difference in "engineering aspects".

--

Many express doubts about 50 ton return, often just when multi-billion-dollar value is affixed. 

The reasoning is unsound, as we see above, and upthread, and elsewhere.  And it often appears just when there's significant commercial value.

I think it raises sociological questions, likely not allowed here.

I doubt many people question the 50 ton landing capability in general. I suspect the question is more in the corner of whether Starship has the delta-V to launch from Mars surface direct to Earth with 50 tons of cargo. It could certainly be done with refueling in LMO, but that might be logistically difficult early on. Payload return shouldn't be a problem in cislunar space, as it wouldn't be a huge leap to refuel an arbitrary number of times on the Moon-to-Earth journey, just like you would refuel in LEO and maybe somewhere in lunar orbit on the way there.

[LMT]

I don't think we on the outside know what engineering aspect that sets the return cargo limit on Starship, or if they will be able to bring 50 tonnes of cargo from Mars, not just from LEO, down to Earth.

A Starship can aerocapture, e.g., to LEO; then EDL. 

Logically, that would be 50 tons delivered from beyond LEO, with no difference in "engineering aspects".

--

Many express doubts about 50 ton return, often just when multi-billion-dollar value is affixed. 

The reasoning is unsound, as we see above, and upthread, and elsewhere.  And it often appears just when there's significant commercial value.

I think it raises sociological questions, likely not allowed here.

I doubt many people question the 50 ton landing capability in general. I suspect the question is more in the corner of whether Starship has the delta-V to launch from Mars surface direct to Earth with 50 tons of cargo...

Payload return shouldn't be a problem in cislunar space...

Case in point: 

Martian 50-t return cargo is doubted again, above,

even though it's well within stated, matter-of-fact capability.

6.9 km/s delta-v for 100 t translates into 7.6 km/s for 50 t, readily exceeding the ~ 6 km/s required from Mars.

[Mackilroy]

Let's not forget uranium and plutonium. Once we can extract/produce these in space for space (so still a way out), the biggest issue with nuclear power in space is gone. That'll make industries which require a lot of power more compact than big powersats.

My understanding is that uranium beyond Earth (at least among the asteroids) is in concentrations thousands of times smaller than the lowest concentrations we've mined here. If you want nuclear energy in space, funding people building D/D fusion reactors is likely a better bet, as then you can obtain deuterium from water nearly everywhere.

[Nilof]

In the inner solar system and in-space, solar is vastly more practical than nuclear in reliability, cost, and power to weight ratio.

On Mars, Uranium concentrations in the ground are higher than on Earth. Though fuel elements are sufficiently low-weight that shipping them from earth is still perfectly viable, especially assuming that a breeder reactor that burns fuel efficiently is used. The mass of the nuclear fuel needed to sustain a colonists indefinitely is literally small compared to the mass of the colonists themselves, let alone the mass of their surrounding infrastructure.

The issue with nuclear reactors is mainly their operational complexity. Fixing a malfunctioning nuclear reactor in a space environment is an absolute PITA.

[high road]

Let's not forget uranium and plutonium. Once we can extract/produce these in space for space (so still a way out), the biggest issue with nuclear power in space is gone. That'll make industries which require a lot of power more compact than big powersats.

My understanding is that uranium beyond Earth (at least among the asteroids) is in concentrations thousands of times smaller than the lowest concentrations we've mined here. If you want nuclear energy in space, funding people building D/D fusion reactors is likely a better bet, as then you can obtain deuterium from water nearly everywhere.

Where do you get that understanding? Is there some geological process that helps concentrate uranium that wouldn't happen in space? Otherwise, we need far more exploration to estimate what we are likely to find.

In the inner solar system and in-space, solar is vastly more practical than nuclear in reliability, cost, and power to weight ratio.

On Mars, Uranium concentrations in the ground are higher than on Earth. Though fuel elements are sufficiently low-weight that shipping them from earth is still perfectly viable, especially assuming that a breeder reactor that burns fuel efficiently is used. The mass of the nuclear fuel needed to sustain a colonists indefinitely is literally small compared to the mass of the colonists themselves, let alone the mass of their surrounding infrastructure.

The issue with nuclear reactors is mainly their operational complexity. Fixing a malfunctioning nuclear reactor in a space environment is an absolute PITA.

Extracting and refing uranium would be much more complex in space. But the main reason not to use it today is because the risk of something going wrong with the launch. So you're not competing with uranium from Earth. Regardless of how compact and easy to ship they are.

As for easy management: the occasional malfunction notwithstanding, maintaining the output of a solar farm that's growing along with the settlement and fuel production, during seasonal dust storms etc, is not a walk in the park either. Or maintaing solar farms on several sides of the moon (eventually, we'll want to move away from the poles) or batteries big enough to outĺast the lunar night. There may be use cases where nuclear submarine sized reactors would be less complex, I think.

edit: fixed quotes. Quoting multiple posts while on my cellphone is quite tricky.

[ppnl]

Where do you get that understanding? Is there some geological process that helps concentrate uranium that wouldn't happen in space? Otherwise, we need far more exploration to estimate what we are likely to find.

On earth uranium is concentrated by hydrothermal and volcanic processes. These are unlikely to happen on asteroids for example. You probably need a planet sized object with an active geology.  And water.

Some ore is as much as 24% uranium but most is far less than 1%. That is orders of magnitude more than the 2.7 parts per million undifferentiated concentration.

[Mackilroy]

Let's not forget uranium and plutonium. Once we can extract/produce these in space for space (so still a way out), the biggest issue with nuclear power in space is gone. That'll make industries which require a lot of power more compact than big powersats.

My understanding is that uranium beyond Earth (at least among the asteroids) is in concentrations thousands of times smaller than the lowest concentrations we've mined here. If you want nuclear energy in space, funding people building D/D fusion reactors is likely a better bet, as then you can obtain deuterium from water nearly everywhere.

Where do you get that understanding? Is there some geological process that helps concentrate uranium that wouldn't happen in space? Otherwise, we need far more exploration to estimate what we are likely to find.

I'm referencing this paper: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0039914068800311

As for seasonal dust storms, I read somewhere that they have little affect the performance of solar panels on Mars. I'll have to see if I can find the source for that.