31 thoughts on “The “Road To Mars””

  1. I admit not clicking the link, but I heard an announcement on local radio that NASA was saying (paraphrased) “Mars possible by 2023 thanks to the new CEV, it will take 9 months to get there.” And I smiled, because back in 1998, I worked on the NASA Design Reference Case and the story was “by 2012”. So yeah, can kicked down the road. At least back then Shuttle was going strong, ISS was about to start orbital construction, and X-33 and X-38 were still potentials. Good times, good times…

  2. Unlike some people here, I actually do believe it likely that NASA will send astronauts to Mars by the 2040s.

    The reason I believe this is I think it’s more likely than not that SpaceX will succeed in its audacious Mars plans; a colony on Mars, plus an interplanetary transport system with a per person cost that’s, by current standards, insanely low. They’ve said about 500k per person, but even if we multiply that by 100, that’s 50 mil per person. So, my guess is that NASA would be interested enough in a manned sample-return mission to Mars to purchase seats, plus rent accommodations and rovers at the SpaceX Mars city.

    I also think that’s the only way we’ll see NASA go to Mars. That’s probably a good thing though; if NASA did manage to do Mars on its own, the mission would probably look a lot like Apollo; a few brief insanely expensive missions, then scrap the whole architecture.

    1. You mean headlines: “NASA lands the 223rd and 224th people on Mars!

      Followed by a ticker tape parade.

      1. Nah, I think the headline would be “NASA astronauts make first landing on Mars!”

        It’d even be true… it’d be a first Mars landing for that NASA crew, even if SpaceX had had a colony there for years.

        Maybe the SpaceX Mars residents would give them the first ticker-tape parade on Mars to celebrate this historic NASA first?

        🙂

        1. “NASA Makes First Landing on Mars!
          – First stop was the local Marsbucks coffee shop”

  3. Excuse me for being a “whats in it for me” dirty capitalist pig, but it seems to me that Mars is too deep of a gravity well to bother with. I think that the Moon, asteroids, and Legrange points make more sense.

    Comments?

    1. IMHO, it comes down to resource availability. From the look of what we know now, it’s likely that Mars might be the best non-Earth source for some things, such as methane, water, some metals, etc. It’s also quite possible that Mars might be better than the moon for agriculture (depending on whether the difference between 1/6 G and 1/3G is significant to crops and food animals.)

      The fact that it takes a lot less propulsive delta/v to get resources (or anything else, such as manufactured goods) from the surface of Mars to low Earth orbit than it does from Earth’s surface is a big factor. This is even more true of the moon and asteroids, of course, but it’d come down to which source is the most economically viable for a particular resource. Water, for example; if you need it in LEO (for either fuel or )2 or habitat water) and its in low concentration at the lunar poles, it might be a lot more economically viable to get it from Mars.

      My personal opinion is that Mars (and its moons), asteroids, and the moon would all be parts of a space economy.

      1. it’s likely that Mars might be the best non-Earth source for some things, such as methane, water, some metals, etc.

        What makes you say that?

        Ceres has water coming out of the kazoo. (Or geyser, or something — anyway, it’s got a lot of water.)

        1. Ceres would be good for a water source, if the water is as abundant and easily harvistable as it appears it might be. The propulsive Delta/v to get it from there to Earth orbit would be a lot less than getting it from Mars.

      2. It’s hard to make an economic viability case for Mars when you take the time-value of money into account.

        That very expensive water freighter is going to spend six months dead-heading to Mars (unless you stock it with supplies), and then six months carrying the load of water back to LEO.

        Given a rather liberal estimate of a week each way to the Moon and back (might have to stop at EML-1, for example), that represents 26 loads of water to LEO in the same time it would take one load of water from Mars. That doesn’t seem particularly competitive.

        I am curious as to what metals you would see as export goods from Mars, particularly those not offered by the Moon.

        With regards to agriculture, we know from Dr. Walkinshaw’s work back in the 1970s that plants LOVE Lunar regolith (http://www.outofthecradle.net/archives/2008/04/of-a-garden-on-the-moon-part-i/). My supposition is that it’s all of the trace elements found in the soil, but no one really knows because the research stopped once it was determined that the soil was not toxic. The one real concern I’ve seen is that the plants might take up too much chromium from the soil, but again, no one really knows, because all research since then has been conducted using regolith simulant, which is designed to mimic the mechanical properties of the soil and its bulk chemistry, but not the abundance of trace elements resulting from the aeons of ‘gardening’ by impactors.

        In the end, Mars may end up importing Lunar regolith for use in their greenhouses. The one Mars export that really makes sense, as noted by Bob Zubrin, is their biowaste. And as far as I’m concerned if the Martians are stupid enough to export their CHONs then the Lunars should be more than happy to buy it.

        When compared with all of the goodies that await us on the Moon, it’s hard for me to take economic arguments for Mars seriously.

        1. Space is Not an Ocean, and there will be no freighters lifting from Selene, Barsoom, or anywhere else with cargoes of ice or ore bound for LEO. If you insist on a nautical metaphor, it’s tugs and barges, and the tugs’ work is done when it has boosted the barge on a ballistic trajectory. Takes a few days at most even if the destination is Pluto, so the expensive bits get fully utilized regardless, and barges are generally cheaper than their payloads.

          So the economics of shipping are about the same whether the source is the Moon or Mars. The planning cycle for the Martian trade will need to be about two years, but that’s common enough even in purely Terrestrial industries, and so long as you’re not tying up capital (except for the barge) isn’t likely to be the deciding factor.

          Resource availability might be, and that’s where we don’t have firm answers. But Mars has a history of running water, plate tectonics, vulcanism, an atmosphere, and maybe life, all of which makes for the sort of interesting geology that keeps prospectors and mining engineers gainfully employed.

          1. Please explain what kind of ‘tug’ in LEO is going to be capturing a ‘barge’ of ice sent on a ‘few days’ trajectory from Mars.

            Looking at the -average- distance of 225,300,000 km from Earth to Mars, a trip of a ‘few days’, let’s say 5 days, would require an average velocity of 521 km/s in transit, assuming a straight line trajectory. Making it a curved ballistic trajectory would up the velocity requirement.

            What kind of ‘tug’ are you proposing that would be able to bleed off that kind of velocity whilst in LEO?

          2. It takes a few days for the tug to do its work. The barge may spend another few days coasting to or from the Moon, months for Mars or the asteroids, years for the outer planets. The tugs, which are the expensive part of the system, don’t care because they’ll be working other payloads in the meantime, one every few days. The barges don’t care because they are cheap and dumb and maybe expendable. The payload, and its owner, don’t care because the load was sold on a futures contract before it departed.

            Oh, there will be a discount rate, but on the order of 10%/year – it is highly unlikely that Lunar, Martian, and asteroidal markets will be so finely balanced that this is the deciding factor.

    3. –Darkstar
      April 7, 2015 at 2:39 PM

      Excuse me for being a “whats in it for me” dirty capitalist pig, but it seems to me that Mars is too deep of a gravity well to bother with. I think that the Moon, asteroids, and Legrange points make more sense.

      Comments?–

      I would the difference of Mars gravity is only significant “in the beginning”.
      Or imagine a time where rocket fuel on lunar surface is a cheap as on Earth surface.
      Or if can assume that at some point in time, the lunar electrical power could be as cheap as Earth electrical [and it must significantly cheaper to have any wish to import electrical power from Space to Earth]..
      And assume electrical power on moon is as cheap as on Earth- so say 5 to 10 cents per kw hour, And one assume there is millions [if not billions] of tonnes of lunar water that with cheap energy cost should cheap to mine- so say water is worth say $10 per ton. Again similar to earth but even if $100 per tons, doesn’t matter much. Plus any mining of metals on the Moon will give excessive amount of oxygen. One can see that rocket fuel could be about the same as Earth. Which is about 10 cents per kg for LOX and about $5 for hydrogen per kg.
      Or 5 + .60 is 5.60 per 7 kg, being 80 cent per lb of rocket fuel.
      One can see that cost to lift a kg of payload into lunar orbit is about $2 per kg and with Mars instead might be $5 per kg of payload.
      Or in terms passenger seats, Lunar $200 and Mars $500.
      It sort like saying if lived in LA, one only going to go SF, because NYC is too expensive to fly to. Or there are more relevant factor.
      Or if going to Mars from Earth, the travel time is far more important- say the Moon is about 1 day and Mars is about 2 to 3 weeks.
      And there all kinds of unknown factors when thinking about so far into the future.
      One inherent value of Mars is it could be a hub of most of asteroid mining in the solar system. And this has to do with Mars lower orbital velocity, it nearest to Main asteroid belt [plus the Jupiter’s Trojans- and everything beyond them], and that Mars does not have billions of people living on the planet could affected by numerous kinds of accidents related to space activity.
      Mars surface is also pretty good in terms of solar energy [compared to Earth surface]. One could terraform Mars so it doesn’t have global dust storms and keep atmospheric dust at low level. And Mars does not need to have much in terms clouds [of CO2 or H2O]. And so if this done Mars become better than Earth, in terms collecting solar energy [PVs, or other] and for plant growth. So one has a huge growing season at Mars poles, and one has the 24 hour growing season elsewhere on Mars. Plus Mars atmosphere has 25 trillion tons of CO2 [Earth as about 3 trillion tons] so Mars has no near term shortage of CO2 for plant growth- for massive crop growth- exceeding Earth’s yearly crop production.
      In addition Mars might have more fresh water than Earth. We need further exploration, but it from what is apparent that Mars has probably at least 1000 times more water than Earth’s Moon. Then if add in water from asteroid mining, one gets to having more water available than Earth salty ocean. So Mars due to the planet itself and due to planet’s location in solar system could have very abundant amounts of water.

      So it seems that short term and commercial use, Earth’s Moon is obvious first destination. But one the enormous values of the Moon in the near term is that the Moon is the gateway to rest of the solar system.
      And one path the Moon opens is using Mars.

      1. I don’t disagree with what you wrote but let me put a little spin on it.

        The Moon won’t be the gateway to the solar system but rather the stations placed at Lunar lagrange points will be. IMO, access to the Moon will come from these stations, especially if these stations have artificial gravity and artificial gravity can solve some of the human factor problems of living in space.

        These stations will then provide a jumping off point to other destinations like Mars.

        1. –I don’t disagree with what you wrote but let me put a little spin on it.

          The Moon won’t be the gateway to the solar system but rather the stations placed at Lunar lagrange points will be.–

          Yes, I agree.
          And I think this is very important point.
          Planetary masses and their L-points are actually the gateway in a very exact sense.
          And I think Mars L-points are important in regard to NASA mars exploration plans- and later use.

        2. I so agree 1000%: http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1764/1

          One thing that perked up ears during my 2007 ISDC presentation was my comment that if I were going to Mars, I wouldn’t go to Mars. I’d go to the Sun-Mars L-1 point and set up shop there, because that gives you access to Phobos & Deimos, Mars itself, as well as a logistics point for expeditions to the Asteroid Belt. (and an on-ramp to the InterPlanetary Superhighways, and an export market for Mars)

          1. ” I were going to Mars, I wouldn’t go to Mars. I’d go to the Sun-Mars L-1 point and set up shop there,”

            Yeah, but I think of Sun-Mars L-1 the base camp or the port.
            Commercially, that would be the prime real estate but NASA purpose should be exploring Mars.
            So I would differ in terms of time spent by crew at Sun-Mars L-1.
            Now the way I look at it, a large part of what humans are doing on Mars is shortening the time of delay of robots on the Mars surface. So therefore that need would be met by having crew stay at Mars L-1.
            But shortening the time delay would be a part rather than everything.
            I suppose if believe it’s too hard putting crew on surface of Mars and one can only send robots to surface, then I would put the crew at L-1.
            And that would change my approach to exploring Mars.
            Or I would start by making artificial gravity spacestation at Earth/Moon L-1 and use water walls for radiation shielding.
            And once spacestation worked, send to Mars L-1.

            But I think it’s not too hard to send crew to Mars surface- it’s hard, but could be done.

            Now the whole reason I think NASA should explore Mars is for purpose of determining if their can be future settlements on Mars. Or that is the entire purpose of exploring Mars.

            In contrast some people [and NASA] believe a major purpose of exploring Mars is to find alien life. And if successful an option could to prohibit human settlements on Mars. Or at least turn Mars into some government realm/park for the study of such alien life.
            So if purpose is studying Mars life and not infect it with Earth life, then one does even want humans on the Mars surface.
            And there so many problems and stupidity connected to this, but I think the show stopper is I can’t see America public providing the funding for this- without considering the massive problems and the stupidity.

            So I want crew on Mars surface because crew are better ways to explore Mars. And a cheaper way to explore Mars.
            But do want to use a lot robotic assets for this exploration.
            So we in the 21 century, and we should use robots, but not everything is robots [they are tools- useful tools].

            So if the purpose of exploring Mars is for human settlement on Mars, there is value to just having humans living on Mars surface. And I don’t want to citizen of a government that would forbid someone like Elon Musk from living on Mars, and I think I would join with the rebels.
            Or if it’s too hard to put crew on Mars- let’s not explore Mars. How about Mercury or Venus?

            Though one could have the view of having a crew station at Mars L-1 for the purpose of to help establish bases on Mars.
            But it seems to me, that such a task doesn’t take very long- something a crew may be involved with over a period of say weeks or months.

            So I would stage in Mars L-1. The Earth return spacecraft, would be parked there. Fuel depots would be parked there- though L-2 has Mars shadow one could use it for cryogenic fuel [tanks could be in shadow, and something with solar panels could in sunlight- but still be fairly close]. But whether L-1 or L-2 in terms delta-v it’s same place, though a long travel time separated.
            And basically all one needs to put establish a base could be parked at L-1. And crew shows up [starting when crew is 5 million km away] and crew ends up a L-1, but could be there for days rather than months, before going to mars surface.
            So crew not really stopping at L-1, more like low pass of Mars, up to L-1 [which a large elliptical orbit, and flying thru Mars atmosphere in kind of areo caputure type areobraking.
            Or there lots of option. One get rid of a stage, one transfer crew to different vehicle or whatever.
            I tend to think of getting crew to Mars surface as quickly as possible, as also think crew should be sent from Earth to mars as quickly as possible [3 months or less].
            I tend to be less concerned about getting crew back from Mars to Earth as fast as possible, but if return vehicle starts at L-1, it’s pretty easy to do this rather quickly. Or getting from Mars surface to L-1 is the harder part.
            So perhaps the spacecraft which returns crew to Earth, may go down to Low orbit, dock with returning crew, then bring them back to L-1, refuel and head back to Earth. Or maybe just leave from low Mars orbit.

    5. That’s what I don’t understand about Elon Musk’s dream. It seems like it would be vastly easier to construct an L5 O’Neill type colony than it would to make a livable colony on Mars. Gravity wells (esp. with atmospheres) are the places you want to avoid.

        1. Well yes… and no. That may be a starting point, but the deeper attraction of Mars and any other planetary body is that its landscape and history is not 100% human-created. Then there’s the attraction of having a horizon like Earth’s, instead of one that curves over you. But that may be simply a generational thing peculiar to those brought up on a planet.

          Anyway, the most critical question remains what happens to humans in a partial -g field for long periods, particularly for reproduction. If it’s a problem, planetary surfaces will still have an allure for visits, at least until humans 1.x can be engineered, which I suspect would take a great deal of time indeed.

      2. –JS Farrow
        April 8, 2015 at 6:40 AM

        That’s what I don’t understand about Elon Musk’s dream. It seems like it would be vastly easier to construct an L5 O’Neill type colony than it would to make a livable colony on Mars. Gravity wells (esp. with atmospheres) are the places you want to avoid.–

        I can’t say understand Musk’s dream. Is it to be large rancher/farmer
        on Mars. A founder of a town?
        But fundamentally the main difference I see between Earth and Space is that Space is where one goes fast.
        So minimum speed limit on Mars is about 500 mph. As example.
        So I can’t imagine a calm and quiet life on a L5 O’Neill type colony
        as the space environment dictates otherwise. So calmly strolling over to visit to neighbors, isn’t what picture as typical.
        So things like Musk’s “The Hyperloop is a conceptual high-speed transportation system put forward by entrepreneur Elon Musk”
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperloop
        is the norm on L5 O’Neill type colony. As there is no digging involved and so why not? Of course with Mars there would be digging involved. So, Martians get good at digging a lot.
        though suborbital travel is easier. But there could number reasons that Martians get good at digging without requiring Hyperloops.

        Besides the aspect of traveling faster than speeding bullet, is something everyone is doing in space [otherwise because Space is big- it take forever to get somewhere]. So other than fast, another aspect is unlimited resourses- most important being electrical energy- or just usable energy in whatever form.

        Solar energy does not work on Earth surface, but it work in space- it powering all the satellite which in orbit and not because there a need for “green energy”, but because it works.
        Another thing is nuclear bombs make good fireworks in space- one needs some work on the art of doing this but it could have great potential. Or said differently nuclear energy in space is very different than nuclear energy on Earth.
        Solar and nuclear add up to cheap energy in space. But their is more ways to get cheap energy in space. The other part is energy efficiency is different in space as on Earth. One can go fast and not have it use much energy. One also manage heating a home more efficiently in space as compared to Earth. So 1 million people can go faster and use less energy in space as compare to 1 million people on Earth.
        Gravity wells are not really problem. Instead they convient way to change one’s vector [see gravity assists]. One can choose to loss or gain energy using gravity wells.
        The problem of Earth’s gravity well is largely related to using chemical rockets and the limitation of chemical rockets. Chemical rocket work ok if one only needs say 5 km/sec or less, and with earth one needs about 10 km/sec before one can dock and refuel [in LEO]. One does have actual losses climbing up of Earth gravity well- about 2 km/sec. Most of this loss is called gravity loss, and due to not going fast enough. Chemical rocket which have to do about 10 km/sec of delta-v are massive and start slow. Also the Earth atmosphere prevents them from starting faster.
        And actual delta-v loss from air drag is a minor loss, it’s the dynamic pressure of moving trillion and trillion of molecule out of the way.
        So Mars or Moon would not have much gravity loss, unless accelerates a lot slower, and rocket can be smaller, and could accelerate even faster [but not needed as is it needed with Earth].

        So need 2.5 km/sec to leave the Moon [1.6 for very low orbit], one probably go say 4 km/sec, just to get someplace in shorter period of time. And if rocket fuel is cheap, why not save some time?
        So going 4 km/sec from Moon has near zero gravity loss, and that you on the moon or not a moon makes no difference. Or you can even steal velocity from the Moon depending where going. Or perhaps more correctly one does not have same penalty for changing vector from the Moon as compared to an non massive body.
        Now L5 O’Neill type colony has advantage, One advantage is it’s near gravity wells- so it can use them. And you also make artifical gravity, allow a choice of how much artificial gravity you want- spin rate and/or where you are in the disk.
        So you get lunar material easily and one can get asteroid material
        fairly easily, particularly when uses gravity wells for various gravity assists. Or just use nuclear bombs to give you Nuclear Orion type propulsion, or wiki:
        “The Orion nuclear pulse drive combines a very high exhaust velocity, from 19 to 31 km/s in typical interplanetary designs, with meganewtons of thrust. Many spacecraft propulsion drives can achieve one of these or the other, but nuclear pulse rockets are the only proposed technology that could potentially meet the extreme power requirements to deliver both at once.”
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_%28nuclear_propulsion%29
        And people living space, moon, Mars, and/or L5 O’Neill type colony, then one will get nuclear orion, because only reason we don’t use them is due to Earth. We don’t nuclear blasts in Earth’s atmosphere.
        But probably most people in space would continue to use chemical rockets. Because they don’t need this much power and they need to be large spacecraft [or a space rock].

    6. If the surface of Mars or the moon was covered with gold, it still wouldn’t make economic sense to try to send it to the Earth. I don’t know of anything on Mars that would be economically viable to send to the Earth. Due to its lower gravity and closer proximity, it’s possible there might be some resources on the moon that could be used in space, just not on the Earth’s surface. And yes, I’m including He3.

      For the most part, the resources on the moon will be used on the moon to make settlement easier. The resources on Mars will be used on Mars so you don’t have to send so much stuff from the Earth. With its higher gravity, greater water availability, and other factors, Mars would probably be a better place to try to live. Even then, it will be a tough existence for a long time. I do support returning to the moon first to develop critical technologies and gain operational experience before attempting to go to Mars.

      As for the asteroids, there is a vast wealth of resources there that can be used for many purposes. There aren’t any resources at the La Grange points but they have other advantages. Send resources from the asteroids to the La Grange points for use there.

      1. There are economic differences between raw commodities, and value-added goods. There may not be much demand on Earth for extruded aluminum products (GEO is likely to be the demand point there), but there are conceivably markets for value-added goods unavailable on Earth. Would I try to export Lunajuana to Amsterdam or Denver? Oh yeah!

        Another consideration is that most commodities are not properly priced in the markets. Companies have gotten very good at pushing off costs like environmental remediation onto government or into the future. Real all-in pricing is likely to change the analysis.

      2. Larry J
        –April 8, 2015 at 11:04 AM

        If the surface of Mars or the moon was covered with gold, it still wouldn’t make economic sense to try to send it to the Earth. I don’t know of anything on Mars that would be economically viable to send to the Earth. Due to its lower gravity and closer proximity, it’s possible there might be some resources on the moon that could be used in space, just not on the Earth’s surface. And yes, I’m including He3. —

        The moon surface isn’t covered with gold [and wouldn’t as important if it were] but in analogy the Moon is covered with aluminum, which at one point in our history was more valuable than
        gold.
        Lunar dirt is currently worth far more than gold, I would argue it would a huge benefit to *humanity* if lunar dirt was cheaper than gold. Or there absolutely nothing wrong with having lunar dirt cheaper than gold.
        Or there was great value in lower the price of aluminum so it’s somewhere around 3 times the cost of iron. It might a lot better if aluminum were as cheap as iron- but there sane reasons it’s not [doesn’t involve any crazy conspiracy- rather it’s basic economics].
        Likewise it would be better if lunar dirt was the price of , say silver.
        But it seems fairly unlikely that lunar dirt will become as cheap as silver any time soon- for economic reasons. Aluminum is related to cost of electrical power and lunar dirt is related to transportation costs from the moon to Earth. But getting lunar dirt to the price of around the price of gold is possible within a decade or two [price of silver, not really possible with a mere two decades].
        So to get lunar dirt to around the price of gold [$50 per gram] one would need about 100 tons or more of it delivered to Earth.
        Or if one was to only deliver say 10 tons- one could sell it for say $10 per gram [cheaper than gold] but if there was only 10 tons of lunar dirt on Earth- that makes of rarer than cut diamonds. Which means if sold for 10 per gram, people would turn around and sell it for more than 50 per gram, immediately. So if only had 10 tons, if sells instantaneously at $10 per gram. And such enthusiasm would be dampen if another 10 tons was planned to be deliver to earth.
        But that not reasonable, one sells at price which matches demand,
        and so one could probably sell the first 10 tons for more than price of gold. It seems possible that next 10 tons could also be sold for around the same price as gold- but does actually mean it has to sell for same price as gold, one could sell first 10 tons at price of gold and second 10 tons for more than price of gold, and that could continue for next 10 tons, and etc. It depends on the demand and many other factors.
        A source of demand could be collectors. Another could be schools.
        Another source of demand could governments or other entities that want safeguard against counterfeit currency [or other counterfeit things]. So if you put a 1/1000 of gram of lunar dust on something and be able to easily detect that lunar material- one could have an enormous demand for lunar material.

        So saying lunar dirt can have same value as gold and it worth as much as gold, and if it was as cheap as gold that would a really good thing, as people could get it and use it for various reasons.

        But just the lunar dirt by itself is not whole answer, what need to lunar rocket fuel at the surface of the Moon and selling for about $2000 per lb. But even if lunar rocket fuel was higher than $2000 per lb- say 20,000 per kg. And at $50 per gram it’s 50,000 per kg,
        one metric of roughly sending 1000 kg to lunar surface to bring back 10,000 kg once one buys the rocket fuel. Which roughly works. Though maybe it has to be twice gold price.
        So doesn’t work if have to mine lunar water and make into rocket fuel to then bring back lunar dirt, but if rocket fuel available to buy
        at less than 10,000 per kg then gets near viable.
        But if forget about bringing back lunar dirt, I think to be viable one needs to price to be around $2000 per lb/kg, because one needs
        to ship rocket fuel or water to lunar orbit to increase demand for lunar water. So in that case, spacecraft which returns lunar dirt, gets to lunar orbit with empty tanks, refills, lands and than refills to get back to earth. So it wound effective buy 20% more rocket fuel.
        1000 kg at orbit [required 1000 kg to deliver it] total 2000 kg, and using 10,000 kg to lift lunar dirt payload.
        And if bring payload to lunar surface rather taking from lunar surface, the delivered lunar rocket fuel become far significant than merely 20% increase in demand. Or for tourist, you bringing humans and their life support and leaving with humans and their life support.
        Though if bring say mining equipment, it stays on the Moon.
        Anyways if lunar surface rocket fuel needs to be cheaper than lunar orbit rocket fuel- that works out pretty good for bringing stuff from the lunar surface to the earth surface.

  4. Mars might well become a source of resources – if only because a Martian Beanstalk would be relatively practical. (A Beanstalk for Earth is almost impossible, but Mars’s lower gravity and very low atmospheric pressure make it much easier to build one on Mars.)

    Which is, of course, a very long term proposition.

  6. As time goes by I’m becoming convinced of two things.
    1) Surfaces are of no interest to NASA, short or long term.
    2) Put #1 another way, NASA == Not A Surface Agency.

    What does this mean? Leave planets and the moon to NGOs that can invest in them for colonization. Leave NASA to explore and innovate in space vehicles & transport & infrastructure. I’m thinking a manned “grand tour” interplanetary vehicle & space way-station. Like Nautilus-X. Or even let them go for an Aldrin Cycler. I wouldn’t have an issue with projects to develop either.

Comments are closed.