
The Economic Viability of Mars Colonization (1998) - beerlord
https://www.aleph.se/Trans/Tech/Space/mars.html
======
shroom
What an incredible detailed read covering many aspects of what potentialy will
be mankinds greatest endeavour. And if, it can potentialy be happening in the
mid-near future! Reading this really gets your sci-fi mind going. Thanks for
sharing!

------
abecedarius
This paper calls Mars _uniquely_ suitable, but only briefly references O'Neill
on free-space habitats built out of lunar or asteroid material. His main
argument against seems to be the need to protect from radiation, but it's not
like O'Neill and successors did not know -- they had designs for that. Yes, a
habitat with gravity and shielding and agriculture would be expensive. So
would colonizing Mars.

------
LeifCarrotson
> _Assuming complete coverage of the planet with photosynthetic plants, it
> would take about a millennia to put the 120 mbar of oxygen in Mars '
> atmosphere needed to support human respiration in the open...Assuming the
> whole planet is covered with machines converting sunlight to electricity at
> 30% efficiency, and all this energy is applied to releasing oxygen from
> metallic oxides...atmosphere could be created in about 30 years._

Are plants really that inefficient? They're basically solar-powered
nanomachines that release oxygen from carbon. Wikipedia reports "an overall
photosynthetic efficiency of 3 to 6% of total solar radiation".

~~~
ElBarto
Note that converting sunlight to electricity (what the 30% figure is about) is
also quite different from using sunlight to convert CO2 to glucose (what the
6% figure is about).

Apparently the first stage of photosynthesis effectively does convert sunlight
to electricity and does that with 90% efficiency, which is far beyond what our
technology can achieve.

Source: [https://www.economist.com/the-economist-
explains/2014/12/03/...](https://www.economist.com/the-economist-
explains/2014/12/03/how-plants-exploit-sunlight-so-efficiently)

~~~
claytonius
It's also important to consider that photosynthesis only captures photons in a
very narrow spectrum relative to the total spectral output of the sun.

------
Nokinside
In the end it depends on the economic incentives, or lack of them.

The potential economic value for space exploration comes from satellites
orbiting earth (communication, sensors), mining near earth asteroids for rare
and expensive minerals and possibly even energy generations. Moon is possible
destination because it could serve Earth.

From the point of financing the effort Mars is just a sink. First spend
hundreds of billions to start it, then billions per year to maintain it.

People don't spend their wealth to permanently reduce their living standards
and the change for survival of their children. Permanently breathing bottled
air inside a housing in a desert planet, having reduced lifespan etc. is not
fun. All the space exploration romantics goes away in few years and people
lose the interest.

If you want to colonize Mars permanently, first create (de facto) post
scarcity economy on the Earth. Before that' there is no change for permanent
colonization. Research settlement in Mars is possible.

~~~
LeifCarrotson
> _The potential economic value for space exploration comes from ... mining
> near earth asteroids for rare and expensive minerals_

As the article describes, mining asteroids for rare and expensive minerals is
more viable from Mars.

Earth is in an incredibly deep gravity well: it's remarkable that we made it
out with just chemical rockets, an Earth just 1.5x larger in diameter would
need a stack of something like 20 Saturn Vs to get one ton to LEO, instead of
the 120 tons that a single rocket could do on Earth.

Mars is half the diameter of Earth. To lift fuel to an asteroid from Mars
takes a rocket 1.7% the size of an equivalent rocket from Earth.

Asteroid miners will need fuel, water, food, metals, and other supplies that
could be manufactured on Mars. It is many, many times cheaper to launch these
from the surface of Mars than to do so from the surface of Earth.

You end up with a three-way triangle of trade between high-tech components
like microchips and turbopumps from Earth, supplies from Mars, and precious
metals aerobraking down into Earth's gravity well.

> _Moon is possible destination because it could serve Earth._

I don't want to mirror previous stupid decisions on Earth of undervaluing
potential colonies, but the Moon has very little it can offer Earth...the
geology can't support the production of fuel, water, food, and metals like
Mars is capable of.

~~~
Nokinside
The article is written assuming colonization is happening (colonization would
generate demand) For colonization to happen, there is need for incentive. The
article is not giving it.

Asteroids near earth provide wast quantities of water and there is cheap
energy available (the Sun). Asteroids also have hydrocarbons. Asteroid mining
would serve earth. Mining mars would not be competitive source of minerals for
Earth.

Asteroid mining is easier to automatize. Move them even closer to earth and
use partial automation and remote control.

The metals in asteroids are easier to mine because usually they have not been
oxidized like they are on the Earth or in the Mars, nor are they buried deep
in the ground. It's possible that there are just nodules to pick up.

Mars has low gravity, but the delta-v that determines the cost is still huge
compared to asteroids. Delta-V to nearest asteroids from LEO is ~3.3. Delta-v
from LEO to Mars is 9.3.

Access to Mars is also technically more challenging (Mars landers fail often.
The few asteroid that have been done have been a success).

~~~
LeifCarrotson
> Move them even closer to earth and use partial automation and remote
> control.

Move them with what fuel?

Also, the Martian missions have been far more ambitious than the asteroid
missions.

------
jessriedel
The excellent Casey Handmer covers some of the new facts that have come to
light since this paper was written.

> Last week, a Nature paper
> ([https://www.nature.com/articles/s41550-018-0529-6](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41550-018-0529-6))
> was published by Jakosky and Edwards arguing that, based on data from more
> recent orbiters, the total near-surface reserves of CO2 are much too low to
> built up the atmosphere enough for terraforming. What a bummer!

[http://caseyexaustralia.blogspot.com/2018/08/atmospheres-
and...](http://caseyexaustralia.blogspot.com/2018/08/atmospheres-and-
terraforming_5.html)

He describes some of the back-and-forth dispute, but ultimately comes down
pretty pessamistic on Mars terraforming.

------
CryptoPunk
The cost would be enormous. Much of what's consumed on the Mars settlement
would have to be imported from another planet (Earth). During the early
expansion phase the need for imported construction material would be
exorbitant. We're talking a constant flow of goods being launched from Earth
to sustain construction.

And expansion and sustainance would be very capital intensive, due to a lack
of a breathable atmosphere requiring heavy duty habitats and lack of
vegetation/fauna that can be harvested.

~~~
fosk
I would assume that a colony on Mars will have to rely on materials found on
Mars for construction in order to be viable. Therefore after the few initial
buildings built with materials shipped from Earth, there will need to be a
great push to find new materials on Mars and perhaps new construction
techniques to grow the colony.

~~~
maxxxxx
I would like to see more prototyping of techniques that could be used on Mars
to create materials. It seems there is a lot of handwaving but not much real-
world engineering. Before we haven't run a long-term trial for surviving in
some desert on earth it would be irresponsible to fly to Mars.

~~~
TeMPOraL
There is some prototyping, but not nearly enough IMO, and it doesn't hit the
news that much.

I agree about desert trials (or better yet, somewhere dry and cold near the
pole). I'm not sure why this isn't done - whether it's just a money issue, or
there's less benefit to be had from such test than we think?

~~~
maxxxxx
" whether it's just a money issue, or there's less benefit to be had from such
test than we think? "

I think NASA will do them but their dates for such a mission are decades away.
Others who want to do this earlier are probably just not serious. With current
tech this would be a suicide mission. Any little problem will kill the
settlers.

~~~
TeMPOraL
On Earth, you can always airlift people at the earliest sign of trouble, so I
don't think the risk is that big. And even semi-serious attempts could give
wealth of data useful for actual mission.

~~~
maxxxxx
Should have phrased this more precise: I meant on Mars every little problem
will kill you. On Earth you can rescue people, no problem.

~~~
TeMPOraL
Right. Just that the part you quoted in the original reply was about Earth.
Mars mission, that's almost a given. I wonder why we aren't already having
larger-scale trials on deserts or near the poles.

------
hossbeast
"Current knowledge indicates that if Mars were smooth and all it's ice and
permafrost melted into liquid water, the entire planet would be covered with
an ocean over 100 meters deep."

This seems .. incredible. Do we have a different understanding nowadays? (The
paper is 20 years old)

------
seaweed
Significantly, this was written before the discovery of perchlorates in
Martian soil, at levels that are toxic to humans. At a minimum, this means
that human settlement will only be possible after a significant long-term
terraforming process, not before.

------
anarchy8
This is super out of date. A lot has changed in our understanding of the
livability of mars.

~~~
rkagerer
Where would you suggest looking for a more up-to-date overview of this sort
and depth?

------
captain_perl
Bitcoin ICOs, Mars colonization ... whatever happened to critical thinking?

~~~
TeMPOraL
Yes, exactly. Bitcoin and Mars don't belong in the same sentence.

