> 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.
> 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.
AFAIK it makes even more sense to try and lift manufacturing out to LEO and beyond, rather than sending raw resources downwell. Earth has plenty of natural resources that aren't extracted because there's no need, but which would be still cheaper to tap into than having them sourced from space.
This is why it's fashionable now to talk about "cislunar economy". Instead of sending raw material planetside, you'd "reinvest" extracted metals and volatiles into supporting and expanding space-based capability, ultimately leading to a small and somewhat self-sustaining economy, which could then maybe trade with Earth, offering products that benefit from being manufactured in microgravity (optical fiber is one example of such product today). I imagine such space-based economy would end up being the primary trade partner for Mars, just by virtue of being upwell.
> 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.
Not like, but enough to matter, at least in term of fuel and raw resources. Food, well... we have to figure out how to grow it in space anyway, so this doesn't make Moon farm any less likely than an orbital farm. Point being, Moon is a pretty useful destination. It's close and has resources, which puts it in a position of being key element in expanding space-based manufacturing and operations.
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).
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.