Once We Have A Self Sustaining Mars Colony - Then What?

William Mook wrote:

On Thursday, December 15, 2016 at 5:19:54 PM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Tuesday, December 13, 2016 at 12:17:14 AM UTC+13, Jeff Findley wrote:
We've got a Mook on Mook on Mook reply here (minus the first two
Mooks)...

In article ,
says...
The sands of Mars are red. That's because they're made out of
hematite. Why wouldn't you mine iron there and send it back to
Earth with a rail gun?

Because steel made on earth is already quite cheap, so it would be
economic suicide to do what you propose.

Steel has been cheap historically, but is rising inexorably as raw materials are depleted here.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-s-rapid-shift


Pretty sure it's never going to exceed a million dollars a tonne,

So?


So that's going to be the transportation cost for your 'Mars Water',
you nitwit. Right now it is much, MUCH higher than that, so that's
the likely cost in 50 years or so.


so
it's always going to be cheaper to do it here than to bring it back
from space.

Hahaha - bootless speculation indeed. You *always* and I mean *always* accuse others of precisely the thing you do! lol. Sheez.


No, it's merely basic logic. You are going to need about the same
sort of plant wherever you do it, so even if you make the (untrue)
assumptions that all the infrastructure THERE costs no more than the
infrastructure HERE, you still have to move the finished products. The
transportation costs from there will always be higher than the
transportation costs from here.


The sensible thing to do with space resources is, well,
space stuff.

A false dilemma is a fallacy that involves a situation in which only limited alternatives are considered, when in fact there are additional options. The obvious additional option here is that someone with a planetary desert deep in hematite and the ability to turn it to steel, might find ways to seek clients beyond the ones they're already serving! lol.


It's not a dilemma. It's basic logic, which you are incapable of.
lol.


Put differently, when all the space stuff needs are met, and there's more resources available, those resources will naturally find their way to other uses. There is in fact no reason to believe terrestrial customers are special. Earth's surface after all resides in space.


Except the only way to do what you propose is if "those resources" are
sold at a huge loss. That won't happen. Instead they'll either
expand (expanding needs) or stockpile (reducing production).


Krafft Ehricke in 1962 detailed how this would occur in the last half of the 20th century;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R86mkvU4qHw


Your cite doesn't support your claim, is outdated, and is incorrect.





Besides, one would think that a Mars colony would use such raw materials
to either build things they need on Mars or build things that are
actually worth exporting.


That's a false choice. In order to use or build things on Mars local steel is needed. So Martians would need to supply themselves with steel made from hematite on the surface and carbon in the carbon dioxide in the air - which means any surplus to their needs could be exported.


Except no one would buy it at the prices they'd have to charge.

You're the one making baseless assertions. Krafft Ehricke did studies for General Dynamics in 1962 that showed Mars could be a competitive source for nearly all materials we mine on Earth today. Gerard K. O'Neil showed the Moon could build orbiting colonies at Lagrange Points in the Earth Moon system and they would make solar power stations to beam energy to Earth at costs that would make power too cheap to meter in 1972.


Not shown by your cite. Claim fails.





Raw materials aren't going to cut it as an
export unless there is a return on that investment.


Correct. Prices are rising on Earth and Earth's ability to produce low cost steel will be non-existant in 64 years according to the experts. Some believe shortages may be arriving in as little at 12 years.


It's always going to be cheaper to do it here


No it isn't, especially since nuclear fission can be used to make power too cheap to meter in an environment blanketed with deadly radiation and served by artificial intelligence all things will be too cheap to meter. Earth will be a natural place to send things. Especially since its easy to launch things off mars with a magnetic launcher.


Yes, if you ignore the costs of things (power to cheap to meter) and
assume magical technologies that don't exist you can do anything. But
the rest of us are constrained by reality.


once you factor in
transport costs.

You've obviously never heard of mass drivers and non rocket launchers. With Mars' low gravity and low atmospheric density, it is a natural choice to send products back to Earth.


Poppycock. Magical mass drivers that can fire tons of things at Earth
which will then automagically teleport themselves down to the surface
upon arrival do not exist.


It's why there will be a local steel industry on
Mars; because it costs too bloody much to bring it from Earth.

It will be cheaper to make steel on Mars than on Earth in the first place because of the super abundance of hematite (iron makes Mars red) and the super abundance of energy - due to the ability to use nuclear fission in ways that make it too cheap to meter, and the super abundance of labour due to the widespread use of AI and robotics.


Nonsense. There is no more an 'abundance of hematite' on Mars than
there is on Earth. You're going to have to find ores. What you're
talking about using is a very poor grade of ore. Yes, if you ignore
ore quality, ignore the cost of production, and ignore the cost of
transport, you can do anything. But it is only in the fantastical
MookieWorld that such things can be ignored.


http://journals.lww.com/asaiojournal...cial.9 6.aspx


Over 40 years old and irrelevant to your claims.


http://www.osti.gov/scitech/servlets/purl/805252=


Over a decade and a half old and irrelevant to your claims.


https://www.researchgate.net/profile...7583975b89.pdf


Iron concentrations need to be about 4x higher than this reports in
order to be considered 'workable' iron ores. Thanks for disproving
your own point.


http://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/r...cs-atlas-robot


Irrelevant to your claims. If it was relevant we would be using such
robots to mine here. We don't.



Sorry Mook,


I feel your love.


Keep your hands to yourself!


Haha - always misinterpreting - never getting it right.


Haha - always havering - never getting it right.



but this entire idea is b.s.


No it isn't.


Yes it is.

No it isn't.


Yes it is.


Think about the transportation costs.

Okay

Get back to me when
the price of steel on Earth exceeds a million dollars a tonne and we
can start thinking about it.

Nonsense. You have prejudices only. Its obvious when power and labour are too cheap to meter, and your sitting in the metal of a desert made of iron - that you will make iron and sell it to those who want it. At 40 GJ per ton to reduce it from hematite and 16 GJ per ton to launch it to Earth on a mass driver - using nuclear fission technology that's 70 years old TODAY - with no worries about radiation and the environment - iron will arrive from Mars more cheaply than its made on Earth TODAY - with zero environmental costs.


Yes, if you assume magic and ignore costs you can make any claims you
like. But they have nothing to do with our present reality and merely
point out how out of touch with that you are.

Seek help.





I don't know how you got to
visions of Mars colonies sending quite common raw materials like iron,
silicon, aluminum, and etc. to earth by railgun, but it's just not going
to be viable economically.


That's your problem that you don't know something. Perhaps if you listened to those who know more than you - that might help.


Great advice. One wishes YOU would take it once in a while.


I do. That's why I'm able to point to peer reviewed literature for EVERYTHING I say. You? Not so much!


We've seen how that works for you, above. Mostly "peer reviewed
literature" that is decades out of date, incorrect, and doesn't
support your claims in the first place. You then pretend everything
is free and magic exists in order to make your case.



More below.


Nope. Dumping the Magic Mookie Multiplication Math.

Massive MookSpew Munched

See? You ignore your betters. I guess that's one coping mechanism for you.


No, I get tired of wading through voluminous spew from havering
bampots like you.


--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine

On Thursday, December 15, 2016 at 5:47:45 PM UTC+13, JF Mezei wrote:
On 2016-12-14 22:26, William Mook wrote:

The iron ore reserves of Earth at present seem quite vast, but continual exponential increase in consumption make this resource quite finite.

You are forgetting recycling. As resources dwindle, recycling will increase.

No I'm not. The projections I referenced take that into account.


In contrast the Martian surface is littered with quadrillions of tons of hematite

Question is how many grams of iron per tonne of dirt you get, and how
costly is extraction from the dust.

The Mars rovers have estimated that based on a number of measurements. I gave those references too. I also went into detail about the cost of the process. 40 giga-joules per ton. Another 18 giga-joules per ton to send it to Earth with a magnetic mass launcher. A total of 58 giga-joules per ton.. So, how much is a giga-joule on Mars? That's where I had the discussion of too-cheap-to-meter energy.

BTW, does the red apearance of mars signify the iron is rusted and as
such contains oxygen ?

sigh The formula for hematite is Fe2O3. That means given the molecular weight of the materials involved that a ton of hematite consists of 1400 pounds of iron and 600 pounds of oxygen. I mentioned that the mining operation would not only build considerable floor space on Mars but would also provide an Earth normal atmosphere to a depth of 9 feet.

On Sunday, December 18, 2016 at 5:37:12 AM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Thursday, December 15, 2016 at 5:19:54 PM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Tuesday, December 13, 2016 at 12:17:14 AM UTC+13, Jeff Findley wrote:
We've got a Mook on Mook on Mook reply here (minus the first two
Mooks)...

In article ,
says...
The sands of Mars are red. That's because they're made out of
hematite. Why wouldn't you mine iron there and send it back to
Earth with a rail gun?

Because steel made on earth is already quite cheap, so it would be
economic suicide to do what you propose.

Steel has been cheap historically, but is rising inexorably as raw materials are depleted here.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-s-rapid-shift


Pretty sure it's never going to exceed a million dollars a tonne,

So?


So that's going to be the transportation cost for your 'Mars Water',
you nitwit. Right now it is much, MUCH higher than that, so that's
the likely cost in 50 years or so.


so
it's always going to be cheaper to do it here than to bring it back
from space.

Hahaha - bootless speculation indeed. You *always* and I mean *always* accuse others of precisely the thing you do! lol. Sheez.


No, it's merely basic logic. You are going to need about the same
sort of plant wherever you do it, so even if you make the (untrue)
assumptions that all the infrastructure THERE costs no more than the
infrastructure HERE, you still have to move the finished products. The
transportation costs from there will always be higher than the
transportation costs from here.


The sensible thing to do with space resources is, well,
space stuff.

A false dilemma is a fallacy that involves a situation in which only limited alternatives are considered, when in fact there are additional options.. The obvious additional option here is that someone with a planetary desert deep in hematite and the ability to turn it to steel, might find ways to seek clients beyond the ones they're already serving! lol.


It's not a dilemma. It's basic logic, which you are incapable of.
lol.


Put differently, when all the space stuff needs are met, and there's more resources available, those resources will naturally find their way to other uses. There is in fact no reason to believe terrestrial customers are special. Earth's surface after all resides in space.


Except the only way to do what you propose is if "those resources" are
sold at a huge loss. That won't happen. Instead they'll either
expand (expanding needs) or stockpile (reducing production).


Krafft Ehricke in 1962 detailed how this would occur in the last half of the 20th century;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R86mkvU4qHw


Your cite doesn't support your claim, is outdated, and is incorrect.





Besides, one would think that a Mars colony would use such raw materials
to either build things they need on Mars or build things that are
actually worth exporting.


That's a false choice. In order to use or build things on Mars local steel is needed. So Martians would need to supply themselves with steel made from hematite on the surface and carbon in the carbon dioxide in the air - which means any surplus to their needs could be exported.


Except no one would buy it at the prices they'd have to charge.

You're the one making baseless assertions. Krafft Ehricke did studies for General Dynamics in 1962 that showed Mars could be a competitive source for nearly all materials we mine on Earth today. Gerard K. O'Neil showed the Moon could build orbiting colonies at Lagrange Points in the Earth Moon system and they would make solar power stations to beam energy to Earth at costs that would make power too cheap to meter in 1972.


Not shown by your cite. Claim fails.





Raw materials aren't going to cut it as an
export unless there is a return on that investment.


Correct. Prices are rising on Earth and Earth's ability to produce low cost steel will be non-existant in 64 years according to the experts. Some believe shortages may be arriving in as little at 12 years.


It's always going to be cheaper to do it here


No it isn't, especially since nuclear fission can be used to make power too cheap to meter in an environment blanketed with deadly radiation and served by artificial intelligence all things will be too cheap to meter. Earth will be a natural place to send things. Especially since its easy to launch things off mars with a magnetic launcher.


Yes, if you ignore the costs of things (power to cheap to meter) and
assume magical technologies that don't exist you can do anything. But
the rest of us are constrained by reality.


once you factor in
transport costs.

You've obviously never heard of mass drivers and non rocket launchers. With Mars' low gravity and low atmospheric density, it is a natural choice to send products back to Earth.


Poppycock. Magical mass drivers that can fire tons of things at Earth
which will then automagically teleport themselves down to the surface
upon arrival do not exist.


It's why there will be a local steel industry on
Mars; because it costs too bloody much to bring it from Earth.

It will be cheaper to make steel on Mars than on Earth in the first place because of the super abundance of hematite (iron makes Mars red) and the super abundance of energy - due to the ability to use nuclear fission in ways that make it too cheap to meter, and the super abundance of labour due to the widespread use of AI and robotics.


Nonsense. There is no more an 'abundance of hematite' on Mars than
there is on Earth. You're going to have to find ores. What you're
talking about using is a very poor grade of ore. Yes, if you ignore
ore quality, ignore the cost of production, and ignore the cost of
transport, you can do anything. But it is only in the fantastical
MookieWorld that such things can be ignored.


http://journals.lww.com/asaiojournal...cial.9 6.aspx


Over 40 years old and irrelevant to your claims.


http://www.osti.gov/scitech/servlets/purl/805252=


Over a decade and a half old and irrelevant to your claims.


https://www.researchgate.net/profile...7583975b89.pdf


Iron concentrations need to be about 4x higher than this reports in
order to be considered 'workable' iron ores. Thanks for disproving
your own point.


http://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/r...cs-atlas-robot


Irrelevant to your claims. If it was relevant we would be using such
robots to mine here. We don't.



Sorry Mook,


I feel your love.


Keep your hands to yourself!


Haha - always misinterpreting - never getting it right.


Haha - always havering - never getting it right.



but this entire idea is b.s.


No it isn't.


Yes it is.

No it isn't.


Yes it is.


Think about the transportation costs.

Okay

Get back to me when
the price of steel on Earth exceeds a million dollars a tonne and we
can start thinking about it.

Nonsense. You have prejudices only. Its obvious when power and labour are too cheap to meter, and your sitting in the metal of a desert made of iron - that you will make iron and sell it to those who want it. At 40 GJ per ton to reduce it from hematite and 16 GJ per ton to launch it to Earth on a mass driver - using nuclear fission technology that's 70 years old TODAY - with no worries about radiation and the environment - iron will arrive from Mars more cheaply than its made on Earth TODAY - with zero environmental costs.


Yes, if you assume magic and ignore costs you can make any claims you
like. But they have nothing to do with our present reality and merely
point out how out of touch with that you are.

Seek help.





I don't know how you got to
visions of Mars colonies sending quite common raw materials like iron,
silicon, aluminum, and etc. to earth by railgun, but it's just not going
to be viable economically.


That's your problem that you don't know something. Perhaps if you listened to those who know more than you - that might help.


Great advice. One wishes YOU would take it once in a while.


I do. That's why I'm able to point to peer reviewed literature for EVERYTHING I say. You? Not so much!


We've seen how that works for you, above. Mostly "peer reviewed
literature" that is decades out of date, incorrect, and doesn't
support your claims in the first place. You then pretend everything
is free and magic exists in order to make your case.



More below.


Nope. Dumping the Magic Mookie Multiplication Math.

Massive MookSpew Munched

See? You ignore your betters. I guess that's one coping mechanism for you.


No, I get tired of wading through voluminous spew from havering
bampots like you.


--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine

Dated does not mean outdated.

WIth an evergrowing population of ever wealthier individuals, it is doubtful that the Earth will long supply the material needs of humanity. For that reason it is imperative to develop the means to meet this ever growing need from resources found in interplanetary space.

If items on Mars cannot be made and delivered to Earth more cheaply than Earth based resources, then there is no reason to ever go to Mars. Fortunately mass driver technology and power plant technology exists TODAY that make that possible.

Robots are transforming mining today

http://fortune.com/2015/08/25/intern...ning-industry/
https://www.academia.edu/356502/Appl...ti cal_Review
http://www.eumicon.com/images/EUMICO...yk%20Karas.pdf
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news.../04/325475.htm

Heat shield rock - 98% iron
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ore_re..._Meteorite.jpg

98% pure iron - created by a meteorite crashing into the iron rich surface of mars and spewing out pure iron.

General Atomics - MHD Fission Reactor
https://fusion.gat.com/pubs-ext/AnnS...ETC/A23593.pdf

General Atomics - Rail Gun - fires a bullet fast enough to escape the moon's surface and hit Earth. Can be carried on the back of a truck, on a ship, or in a rocket.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNLrQhn5nLo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygHN-vplJZg

Mach 7 - 2.3 km/sec - exceeds the escape velocity of the Moon. So, this device carried to the Moon, and powered up, would easily be capable of driving a lot of mass to Earth dirt cheap.

On 12/17/2016 10:59 PM, William Mook wrote:



Dated does not mean outdated.

WIth an evergrowing population of ever wealthier individuals, it is doubtful that the Earth will long supply the material needs of humanity. For that reason it is imperative to develop the means to meet this ever growing need from resources found in interplanetary space.

If items on Mars cannot be made and delivered to Earth more cheaply than Earth based resources, then there is no reason to ever go to Mars. Fortunately mass driver technology and power plant technology exists TODAY that make that possible.




You're conclusion has a glaring logical flaw. If we can't
learn to live on Earth in a sustainable way, given it's
incredible abundance and ideal conditions, then we
can't learn to live in a sustainable way
anywhere...else.

Either we learn to live within our means here
on Earth, or...else.

The notion we can make it on Mars with it's
harsh conditions and sparse bounties, but not
on Earth, doesn't make sense.

And what does 'ever wealthier individuals' have
to do with it? Plus in the western free market
democracies population growth isn't an issue
implying that freedom and democracy is the
solution to population growth and sustainable
societies.

Not running away from the problems with
colonizing Mars as a solution.


Robots are transforming mining today

http://fortune.com/2015/08/25/intern...ning-industry/
https://www.academia.edu/356502/Appl...ti cal_Review
http://www.eumicon.com/images/EUMICO...yk%20Karas.pdf
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news.../04/325475.htm

Heat shield rock - 98% iron
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ore_re..._Meteorite.jpg

98% pure iron - created by a meteorite crashing into the iron rich surface of mars and spewing out pure iron.

General Atomics - MHD Fission Reactor
https://fusion.gat.com/pubs-ext/AnnS...ETC/A23593.pdf

General Atomics - Rail Gun - fires a bullet fast enough to escape the moon's surface and hit Earth. Can be carried on the back of a truck, on a ship, or in a rocket.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNLrQhn5nLo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygHN-vplJZg

Mach 7 - 2.3 km/sec - exceeds the escape velocity of the Moon. So, this device carried to the Moon, and powered up, would easily be capable of driving a lot of mass to Earth dirt cheap.

Skip to the bottom. Mookie once again flouts Usenet conventions by
posting everything at the bottom rather than in line with the original
discussion.

William Mook wrote:

On Sunday, December 18, 2016 at 5:37:12 AM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Thursday, December 15, 2016 at 5:19:54 PM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Tuesday, December 13, 2016 at 12:17:14 AM UTC+13, Jeff Findley wrote:
We've got a Mook on Mook on Mook reply here (minus the first two
Mooks)...

In article ,
says...
The sands of Mars are red. That's because they're made out of
hematite. Why wouldn't you mine iron there and send it back to
Earth with a rail gun?

Because steel made on earth is already quite cheap, so it would be
economic suicide to do what you propose.

Steel has been cheap historically, but is rising inexorably as raw materials are depleted here.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-s-rapid-shift


Pretty sure it's never going to exceed a million dollars a tonne,

So?


So that's going to be the transportation cost for your 'Mars Water',
you nitwit. Right now it is much, MUCH higher than that, so that's
the likely cost in 50 years or so.


so
it's always going to be cheaper to do it here than to bring it back
from space.

Hahaha - bootless speculation indeed. You *always* and I mean *always* accuse others of precisely the thing you do! lol. Sheez.


No, it's merely basic logic. You are going to need about the same
sort of plant wherever you do it, so even if you make the (untrue)
assumptions that all the infrastructure THERE costs no more than the
infrastructure HERE, you still have to move the finished products. The
transportation costs from there will always be higher than the
transportation costs from here.


The sensible thing to do with space resources is, well,
space stuff.

A false dilemma is a fallacy that involves a situation in which only limited alternatives are considered, when in fact there are additional options. The obvious additional option here is that someone with a planetary desert deep in hematite and the ability to turn it to steel, might find ways to seek clients beyond the ones they're already serving! lol.


It's not a dilemma. It's basic logic, which you are incapable of.
lol.


Put differently, when all the space stuff needs are met, and there's more resources available, those resources will naturally find their way to other uses. There is in fact no reason to believe terrestrial customers are special. Earth's surface after all resides in space.


Except the only way to do what you propose is if "those resources" are
sold at a huge loss. That won't happen. Instead they'll either
expand (expanding needs) or stockpile (reducing production).


Krafft Ehricke in 1962 detailed how this would occur in the last half of the 20th century;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R86mkvU4qHw


Your cite doesn't support your claim, is outdated, and is incorrect.





Besides, one would think that a Mars colony would use such raw materials
to either build things they need on Mars or build things that are
actually worth exporting.


That's a false choice. In order to use or build things on Mars local steel is needed. So Martians would need to supply themselves with steel made from hematite on the surface and carbon in the carbon dioxide in the air - which means any surplus to their needs could be exported.


Except no one would buy it at the prices they'd have to charge.

You're the one making baseless assertions. Krafft Ehricke did studies for General Dynamics in 1962 that showed Mars could be a competitive source for nearly all materials we mine on Earth today. Gerard K. O'Neil showed the Moon could build orbiting colonies at Lagrange Points in the Earth Moon system and they would make solar power stations to beam energy to Earth at costs that would make power too cheap to meter in 1972.


Not shown by your cite. Claim fails.





Raw materials aren't going to cut it as an
export unless there is a return on that investment.


Correct. Prices are rising on Earth and Earth's ability to produce low cost steel will be non-existant in 64 years according to the experts. Some believe shortages may be arriving in as little at 12 years.


It's always going to be cheaper to do it here


No it isn't, especially since nuclear fission can be used to make power too cheap to meter in an environment blanketed with deadly radiation and served by artificial intelligence all things will be too cheap to meter. Earth will be a natural place to send things. Especially since its easy to launch things off mars with a magnetic launcher.


Yes, if you ignore the costs of things (power to cheap to meter) and
assume magical technologies that don't exist you can do anything. But
the rest of us are constrained by reality.


once you factor in
transport costs.

You've obviously never heard of mass drivers and non rocket launchers. With Mars' low gravity and low atmospheric density, it is a natural choice to send products back to Earth.


Poppycock. Magical mass drivers that can fire tons of things at Earth
which will then automagically teleport themselves down to the surface
upon arrival do not exist.


It's why there will be a local steel industry on
Mars; because it costs too bloody much to bring it from Earth.

It will be cheaper to make steel on Mars than on Earth in the first place because of the super abundance of hematite (iron makes Mars red) and the super abundance of energy - due to the ability to use nuclear fission in ways that make it too cheap to meter, and the super abundance of labour due to the widespread use of AI and robotics.


Nonsense. There is no more an 'abundance of hematite' on Mars than
there is on Earth. You're going to have to find ores. What you're
talking about using is a very poor grade of ore. Yes, if you ignore
ore quality, ignore the cost of production, and ignore the cost of
transport, you can do anything. But it is only in the fantastical
MookieWorld that such things can be ignored.


http://journals.lww.com/asaiojournal...cial.9 6.aspx


Over 40 years old and irrelevant to your claims.


http://www.osti.gov/scitech/servlets/purl/805252=


Over a decade and a half old and irrelevant to your claims.


https://www.researchgate.net/profile...7583975b89.pdf


Iron concentrations need to be about 4x higher than this reports in
order to be considered 'workable' iron ores. Thanks for disproving
your own point.


http://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/r...cs-atlas-robot


Irrelevant to your claims. If it was relevant we would be using such
robots to mine here. We don't.



Sorry Mook,


I feel your love.


Keep your hands to yourself!


Haha - always misinterpreting - never getting it right.


Haha - always havering - never getting it right.



but this entire idea is b.s.


No it isn't.


Yes it is.

No it isn't.


Yes it is.


Think about the transportation costs.

Okay

Get back to me when
the price of steel on Earth exceeds a million dollars a tonne and we
can start thinking about it.

Nonsense. You have prejudices only. Its obvious when power and labour are too cheap to meter, and your sitting in the metal of a desert made of iron - that you will make iron and sell it to those who want it. At 40 GJ per ton to reduce it from hematite and 16 GJ per ton to launch it to Earth on a mass driver - using nuclear fission technology that's 70 years old TODAY - with no worries about radiation and the environment - iron will arrive from Mars more cheaply than its made on Earth TODAY - with zero environmental costs.


Yes, if you assume magic and ignore costs you can make any claims you
like. But they have nothing to do with our present reality and merely
point out how out of touch with that you are.

Seek help.





I don't know how you got to
visions of Mars colonies sending quite common raw materials like iron,
silicon, aluminum, and etc. to earth by railgun, but it's just not going
to be viable economically.


That's your problem that you don't know something. Perhaps if you listened to those who know more than you - that might help.


Great advice. One wishes YOU would take it once in a while.


I do. That's why I'm able to point to peer reviewed literature for EVERYTHING I say. You? Not so much!


We've seen how that works for you, above. Mostly "peer reviewed
literature" that is decades out of date, incorrect, and doesn't
support your claims in the first place. You then pretend everything
is free and magic exists in order to make your case.



More below.


Nope. Dumping the Magic Mookie Multiplication Math.

Massive MookSpew Munched

See? You ignore your betters. I guess that's one coping mechanism for you.


No, I get tired of wading through voluminous spew from havering
bampots like you.


Dated does not mean outdated.


Actually, when it comes to things like space, it kind of does.


WIth an evergrowing population of ever wealthier individuals, it is doubtful that the Earth will long supply the material needs of humanity. For that reason it is imperative to develop the means to meet this ever growing need from resources found in interplanetary space.


You and I will both be long dead by the time that even starts to look
like a problem. This is rather like the whole 'peak oil' thing.
'Proven reserves' has always been around 30 years worth for the last
half century or so. That's because we find new sources and improve
technology to be able to economically recover poorer deposits. ALL
natural resources tend to work this way. You talk a lot about
hematite on Mars, but the concentrations in your own citations are way
too poor to be viable mining sources.


If items on Mars cannot be made and delivered to Earth more cheaply than Earth based resources, then there is no reason to ever go to Mars. Fortunately mass driver technology and power plant technology exists TODAY that make that possible.


No reason in your tiny mind, anyway. So YOU should not go.


Robots are transforming mining today


But not the kind of robots your citation above was about.


http://fortune.com/2015/08/25/intern...ning-industry/


Big headline, no data. Talk about what they're "going to do".


https://www.academia.edu/356502/Appl...ti cal_Review


Conventional robotic applications like dumpers and drills. Nothing
like your original citation above.


http://www.eumicon.com/images/EUMICON_2015/Robotics%20in%20mining%20-%20Henryk%20Karas.pdf":ddddd


First slide - "Probably robots..." Not what your original cite talked
about.


http://www.insurancejournal.com/news.../04/325475.htm


A few hundred robotic trucks worldwide and not the type of robots your
original cite was about.


Heat shield rock - 98% iron
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ore_re..._Meteorite.jpg

98% pure iron - created by a meteorite crashing into the iron rich surface of mars and spewing out pure iron.


And here we see Mookie's problem. He just doesn't read very well. The
cite is about AN IRON METEORITE. His last sentence above is simply
wrong and has nothing to do with his cite.


General Atomics - MHD Fission Reactor
https://fusion.gat.com/pubs-ext/AnnS...ETC/A23593.pdf


Do you have a point? I've known about MHDs for decades.


General Atomics - Rail Gun - fires a bullet fast enough to escape the moon's surface and hit Earth. Can be carried on the back of a truck, on a ship, or in a rocket.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNLrQhn5nLo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygHN-vplJZg

Mach 7 - 2.3 km/sec - exceeds the escape velocity of the Moon. So, this device carried to the Moon, and powered up, would easily be capable of driving a lot of mass to Earth dirt cheap.


No. I've been to Dahlgren and know about this program. You
apparently do not.

Face it, Mookie. Anything that makes mining cheaper or allows the use
of poorer ores on Mars will do the same thing here on Earth.
Interplanetary travel will never be able to compete in cost with
trains and ships, so Mars transportation costs to Earth will always be
much higher. That that means is that 'commodities' are always going
to be cheaper to produce here on Earth and they're more valuable on
Mars than they are shipping them to Earth where they cannot compete in
price. Obviously you are not only not an engineer, but you are not
even adequate as a 'business guy'.


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

In article ,
says...
Face it, Mookie. Anything that makes mining cheaper or allows the use
of poorer ores on Mars will do the same thing here on Earth.
Interplanetary travel will never be able to compete in cost with
trains and ships, so Mars transportation costs to Earth will always be
much higher. That that means is that 'commodities' are always going
to be cheaper to produce here on Earth and they're more valuable on
Mars than they are shipping them to Earth where they cannot compete in
price. Obviously you are not only not an engineer, but you are not
even adequate as a 'business guy'.


Agreed. And even as transportation to/from Mars gets cheaper, so will
transportation on earth.

This is why I hate these "far future" discussions in sci.space.policy.
They're so far into the future that they absolutely do not impact policy
today. Instead of here, they belong in a rec.arts.sf group (or
something similar).

Today, we need to keep working on reusable transportation architectures
for space travel. Things that are near term like Falcon 9 first stage
reuse and ACES upper stage reuse. Follow that with reusable landers for
the moon and/or Mars.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

On 12/18/2016 9:00 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...
Face it, Mookie. Anything that makes mining cheaper or allows the use
of poorer ores on Mars will do the same thing here on Earth.
Interplanetary travel will never be able to compete in cost with
trains and ships, so Mars transportation costs to Earth will always be
much higher. That that means is that 'commodities' are always going
to be cheaper to produce here on Earth and they're more valuable on
Mars than they are shipping them to Earth where they cannot compete in
price. Obviously you are not only not an engineer, but you are not
even adequate as a 'business guy'.


Agreed. And even as transportation to/from Mars gets cheaper, so will
transportation on earth.

This is why I hate these "far future" discussions in sci.space.policy.
They're so far into the future that they absolutely do not impact policy
today. Instead of here, they belong in a rec.arts.sf group (or
something similar).

Today, we need to keep working on reusable transportation architectures
for space travel. Things that are near term like Falcon 9 first stage
reuse and ACES upper stage reuse. Follow that with reusable landers for
the moon and/or Mars.

Jeff




I think what is needed is a new profitable reason to
put people into orbit, once that happens the
free market will take care of the launch costs.

The reasons, or excuses, to put people into orbit
are mostly pie in the sky uses like colonies or
joy rides.

When fossil fuel costs become excessive then
a truly useful commodity like space solar power
can become practical and the free markets will
have a new reason to build large structures
in space.



s

On Monday, December 19, 2016 at 12:44:32 AM UTC+13, Jonathan wrote:
On 12/17/2016 10:59 PM, William Mook wrote:



Dated does not mean outdated.

WIth an evergrowing population of ever wealthier individuals, it is doubtful that the Earth will long supply the material needs of humanity. For that reason it is imperative to develop the means to meet this ever growing need from resources found in interplanetary space.

If items on Mars cannot be made and delivered to Earth more cheaply than Earth based resources, then there is no reason to ever go to Mars. Fortunately mass driver technology and power plant technology exists TODAY that make that possible.




You're conclusion has a glaring logical flaw.

No it doesn't.

If we can't
learn to live on Earth in a sustainable way, given it's
incredible abundance and ideal conditions,

The biosphere is ideal for lower forms of life who don't mind competing tooth and claw and creating a culture of the survival of the fittest to that lower order irrespective of other higher values humanity might wish to develop.

Conditions on Earth are non-ideal for an intelligent industrial species. It is only by creating an industrial infrastructure that exists independently of the biosphere, and in fact sustains terrestrial conditions off world that we can continue to grow and develop as an intelligent industrial species.

then we
can't learn to live in a sustainable way
anywhere...else.

Definition of sustainable
1: capable of being sustained
2 a : of, relating to, or being a method of harvesting or using a resource so that the resource is not depleted or permanently damaged sustainable techniques sustainable agriculture

b : of or relating to a lifestyle involving the use of sustainable methods sustainable society

Either we learn to live within our means here
on Earth, or...else.

There are insufficient resources on Earth today to sustain everyone at a high living standard. So, we must either establish a repressive governance world wide to allocate those limited resources in a sustainable way, or we must reduce populations, or we must reduce living standards to do as you say.. All three avenues are being pursued at the present time.

Abundant resources exist off world today. More than enough to sustain everyone at a high living standard, independently of the biosphere. By making use of these resources we can continue with the current population at the current rate of growth, and arrange deployement of infrastructure and capital to sustain a very high living standard for that large and growing population.


The notion we can make it on Mars with it's
harsh conditions and sparse bounties, but not
on Earth, doesn't make sense.

It doesn't make sense to those who have accepted the anti-human propaganda of the past fifty years. However, the dated material from Dr. Ehricke shows that there were other approaches that could be pursued to provide a growing every wealthier population that has the capacity to maintain the biodiversity and capacity of Earth's life form, and sustain conditions beyond Earth using technology that permit that biodiversity to expand and grow to other worlds.

Don't be fooled by the harsh conditions of Mars. You are making a logical error to equate harsh living conditions with sparse bounties. Iron for example is superabundant and easily recovered on Mars. Other elements are equally superabundant.


And what does 'ever wealthier individuals' have
to do with it?

Wealthy individuals command more energy and resources than poor individuals.. That's what it means to be wealthy. In many senses someone that can command the useful time and attention of 100 people continuously to their needs and live on 1000 acres with 10,000 tons of raw material organised for their pleasure, is vastly wealthier than a person who lives in 80 square meters and only a few hours a week of their own time is available to them after taxes fees and other overheads, to meet their own needs, while only 2.5 tons of raw materials are organised for their living needs. Wealthy individuals have fewer children on average. Wealthy populations import workers to make up the shortfall in numbers their low reproduction rates cause. A world of very wealthy individuals all reproducing at rates that are below replacement levels, using robotic labour to provide for human labour shortfalls, requires vastly more resources than exist on Earth today if we are to sustain this for the world's current population.

To the extent that land, material, energy and useful time and attention depend on the capacity of the Earth's biosphere to sustain it, is the degree of impact we humans have on the biosphere. To the extent that land, material, energy and useful time and attention are totally independent of the Earth's biosphere to sustain it, provides a trophic change in the human condition and sets the stage for a trophic cascade that restores balance of the biosphere. To the degree we can build infrastructure that sustains conditoins suitable for life off world is the degree with which we can expand our biosphere.

Plus in the western free market
democracies population growth isn't an issue
implying that freedom and democracy is the
solution to population growth and sustainable
societies.

Markets are not as free as you imagine and democracy is not as responsive as you believe as Edward Bernays pointed out in his ground breaking 1929 classic "Propaganda".

The real factor impacting growth rate is the living standard of the top 5% of the world's population who consume 50% of the world's resources. If all were to consume at the rate of the top 5% we would need to produce 19x the output we do today and that cannot be sustained with the resources remaining on Earth.

Very wealthy populations have higher degree of education and a greater range of personal liberty having nothing to do with politics. A person living in a Kingdom with a controlled market like Qatar has a per person income of $105,000 per year average whilst the Democratic Republic of Congo under virtually lawless conditions has a per person income of $395 per year average.. Providing a counter-example to your presumption that democracy and free markets create wealth.

You are correct that those with higher income have lower reproductive rates while those with lower income have higher reproductive rates. Sociologists argue about this one, but one common element seems to be higher income generally available.

Now, with industry tied inexorably to the biosphere and terrestrial resources, we must get rid of about 85% of the people alive today to have the remaining 15% live at a standard that is sufficient to maintain a balance with nature. That implies the death of 6.4 billion people at the moment. The problem with this approach is that if an event or series of events are unleashed or allowed to happen on the planet to depopulate it to this extent, there is very little difference between wiping out 85% and 100% of humanity. that is, welcoming this approach is tantamount to welcoming our extinction.. Even if we should survive physically it is doubtful we will survive emotionally and psychologically as the same species. The sociological consequences of such an act of depopulation would also be immense. I doubt if anyone alive today would recognise the survivors of such a depopulation event as human.

Further, this is a solution to a resource problem that has other solutions. You don't solve the problem of there not being enough hats by beheading people. You solve the problem of there not being enough hats by figuring out how to make more hats. The fact the resources lie beyone where you've been before is no excuse for not going after them.

Not running away from the problems with
colonizing Mars as a solution.

Turning our back on the resources of the solar system is not the solution either. Our species over-ran the resources of Olduvai Gorge some 1.9 million years ago. We naturally expanded our range by developing ways of living that allowed us to survive in environments we were not naturally suited to. This involves technology and the consumption of secondary resources to support that technology. By asking humanity to to turn its back on the frontier is asking humanity to make a fundamental change in its make up that has assured its dominance on Earth and will clearly lead to an extinction event that has no guarantee of limiting itself to 85% of the total. An extinction event of this magnitude could very well wipe out everyone.

The only practical question is, can we supply Earth's population with off-world resources in a way that frees the terrestrial population of its negative interactions with the terrestrial biosphere? Can it do so at a cost that is substantially less than making use of the resources on Earth? Given that we are saving the lives of 6.4 billion people alive today, and enriching the lives of 7.1 billion persons by making use of off world resources in this way, it makes sense to give it some serious consideration.

Can we make use of off-world resources more cheaply on Earth than using resources made on Earth? The answer to this question is surprisingly yes. Here's why;

The cost of anything is dictated by a number of factors;

(1) Raw material costs, including environmental costs,
(2) Energy costs,
(3) Labour costs,
(4) Social costs,
(5) Transport costs,

Let's take the example of iron on Earth vs. Iron on Mars.

Iron does not exist freely on Earth, but in ores that at the present time must be enriched to be usable at all. The availability of ores on Earth is strictly limited and use rates even with infinite recycling are difficult to expand to 19x consumption levels needed. Iron does exist freely on Mars and there is a superabundance of hematite on Mars turning the entire planet red. Hematite a high grade ore on Earth and quite rare in comparison to Mars.

Nuclear energy involving unshielded reactors using high grade fissile materials produce energy that is too cheap to meter. Such reactor operation cannot occur on Earth for a variety of reasons. One is that the biosphere of Earth is intolerant of radiation. Another is that there are nuclear weapons on Earth and we must limit their spread given our fractured social and political conditions. On Mars neither of these concerns apply. Mars is already quite radioactive compared to Earth. Settlers there will live in environments engineered to eliminate this radiation hazard. So, the use of unshielded or lightly shielded reactors are possible. Nuclear wepons do not exist on Mars. So, concern about proliferation of weapons on Mars isn't an issue either. So, the use of highly enriched materials in unsheilded or lightly shielded compact high temperature reactors, produces energy that is 1% or less the cost of energy production on Earth. So, energy is less expensive on Mars.

Anyone who has used Siri or GPS navigation App or seen the advances of Boston Dynamics or Wolfram Alpha or IBM's Watson or Tesla Autodrive, understands that AI is largely a solved problem today. The big issue is that these advances will not be permitted to compete with human populations without a fight. The picture of French cabbies setting cars afire on the motorway in response to Uber apps being made available in Paris is a case in point. On Mars, this dynamic does not exist and everything will be done with a high degree of automation due to very low populations and very high transport cost of that population. So, labour costs are far less on ars than on Earth.

The USA spends over $1 trillion per year on homeland security and overseas operations to secure itself against terror attacks. Europe spends similar amounts. These costs are trending upward as conditions worsen in the Middle East and those who can make their way to Europe. Labor unions, nuclear proliferation, environmental degradation, Mars doesn't have these problems and never will. Social costs of Mars operations are less than comparable operations on Earth.

Transport costs are a function of gravity field method of transport and distance. On Earth we have;

Earth:

$2.24 per gallon petrol

Barge 514 ton miles/gallon 230 ton miles/dollar
Rail 202 ton miles/gallon 90 ton miles/dollar
Truck 59 ton miles/gallon 26 ton miles/dollar
Air 16 miles/gallon/ton 7 ton miles/dollar

Lower gravity (1/3 that of Earth) and lower air drag (1/1,000,000th that of Earth) and lower energy costs (1/100th that of Earth) make a huge difference;

Mars

$0.0224 per gallon petrol equivalent

Maglev 1,542 miles/gallon/ton 69,000 ton miles/dollar
Rail 606 miles/gallon/ton 27,000 ton miles/dollar
Truck 357 miles/gallon/ton 7,800 ton miles/dollar
Air 48 miles/gallon/ton 2,100 ton miles/dollar

Now, to project an object from Mars to Earth along a Hohmann transfer orbit from the surface, requires that is be blasted off the surface at a speed of 6.1 km/sec. (13,640 mph). A rail gun is 95% efficient at this task. So, 19.6 giga-joules of energy are required to project one metric ton from Mars to Earth. That's 148.6 gallons of petrol equivalanet. That costs $332 per ton paying $2.24 per gallon. Its $3.32 per ton paying 2.24 cents per gallon.

If you live on a rail line within 2,200 miles of a steel mill on a rail line connecting, then transport costs might be cheaper for a ton of steel transported from Mars. However, any steel mill on Mars could send steel to you on Earth via mass driver if this weren't the case. Since the labour energy resource and social costs are far cheaper on Mars than on Earth, then there is no reason to operate steel mills on Earth once far more efficient steel mills are operating on Mars.

Advantages in obvious resources like steel can be leveraged into other resources. For example, materials can be sent to Earth Orbit from which large space stations are constructed within which food and fibre are grown with automated systems under ideal conditions.


Robots are transforming mining today

http://fortune.com/2015/08/25/intern...ning-industry/
https://www.academia.edu/356502/Appl...ti cal_Review
http://www.eumicon.com/images/EUMICO...yk%20Karas.pdf
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news.../04/325475.htm

Heat shield rock - 98% iron
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ore_re..._Meteorite.jpg

98% pure iron - created by a meteorite crashing into the iron rich surface of mars and spewing out pure iron.

General Atomics - MHD Fission Reactor
https://fusion.gat.com/pubs-ext/AnnS...ETC/A23593.pdf

General Atomics - Rail Gun - fires a bullet fast enough to escape the moon's surface and hit Earth. Can be carried on the back of a truck, on a ship, or in a rocket.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNLrQhn5nLo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygHN-vplJZg

Mach 7 - 2.3 km/sec - exceeds the escape velocity of the Moon. So, this device carried to the Moon, and powered up, would easily be capable of driving a lot of mass to Earth dirt cheap.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ev0G49jXJX0

I was using old data from mass driver studies done in the 1970s when I was in school to calculate the quarter mile length of mass drivers on Mars. New data from rail guns developed and deployed by General Atomics - shows that they can fire a projectile with a speed of 2.3 km/sec (5,143 mph)- the escape velocity of the moon - in a length of 12.2 meters (40 feet!). This is an acceleration 4.4x greater than that achieved by the mass drivers of the 1970s. This implies that a similar gun 85.8 meters (281.4 ft) long - could be used to project objects off Mars all the way to Earth. Such a gun, would consist of 8 barrels in a 40 foot container, that would be fitted on the end of the system shown in the video.

A Mars Colonial Transport sending one of these guns that fire at 36x per second per barrel, and sporting rounds of 10 kg each deliver 0.36 tons per second during operation. That's 2.84 million tons over a three month period each synodic period of 2.15 years. 1.32 million tons per year on average. Each cannon delivers $1.04 billion per year at an average cost of $0.79 per kg for raw materials.

On Monday, December 19, 2016 at 1:23:45 AM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Skip to the bottom. Mookie once again flouts Usenet conventions by
posting everything at the bottom rather than in line with the original
discussion.

William Mook wrote:

On Sunday, December 18, 2016 at 5:37:12 AM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Thursday, December 15, 2016 at 5:19:54 PM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Tuesday, December 13, 2016 at 12:17:14 AM UTC+13, Jeff Findley wrote:
We've got a Mook on Mook on Mook reply here (minus the first two
Mooks)...

In article ,
says...
The sands of Mars are red. That's because they're made out of
hematite. Why wouldn't you mine iron there and send it back to
Earth with a rail gun?

Because steel made on earth is already quite cheap, so it would be
economic suicide to do what you propose.

Steel has been cheap historically, but is rising inexorably as raw materials are depleted here.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-s-rapid-shift


Pretty sure it's never going to exceed a million dollars a tonne,

So?


So that's going to be the transportation cost for your 'Mars Water',
you nitwit. Right now it is much, MUCH higher than that, so that's
the likely cost in 50 years or so.


so
it's always going to be cheaper to do it here than to bring it back
from space.

Hahaha - bootless speculation indeed. You *always* and I mean *always* accuse others of precisely the thing you do! lol. Sheez.


No, it's merely basic logic. You are going to need about the same
sort of plant wherever you do it, so even if you make the (untrue)
assumptions that all the infrastructure THERE costs no more than the
infrastructure HERE, you still have to move the finished products. The
transportation costs from there will always be higher than the
transportation costs from here.


The sensible thing to do with space resources is, well,
space stuff.

A false dilemma is a fallacy that involves a situation in which only limited alternatives are considered, when in fact there are additional options. The obvious additional option here is that someone with a planetary desert deep in hematite and the ability to turn it to steel, might find ways to seek clients beyond the ones they're already serving! lol.


It's not a dilemma. It's basic logic, which you are incapable of.
lol.


Put differently, when all the space stuff needs are met, and there's more resources available, those resources will naturally find their way to other uses. There is in fact no reason to believe terrestrial customers are special. Earth's surface after all resides in space.


Except the only way to do what you propose is if "those resources" are
sold at a huge loss. That won't happen. Instead they'll either
expand (expanding needs) or stockpile (reducing production).


Krafft Ehricke in 1962 detailed how this would occur in the last half of the 20th century;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R86mkvU4qHw


Your cite doesn't support your claim, is outdated, and is incorrect.





Besides, one would think that a Mars colony would use such raw materials
to either build things they need on Mars or build things that are
actually worth exporting.


That's a false choice. In order to use or build things on Mars local steel is needed. So Martians would need to supply themselves with steel made from hematite on the surface and carbon in the carbon dioxide in the air - which means any surplus to their needs could be exported.


Except no one would buy it at the prices they'd have to charge.

You're the one making baseless assertions. Krafft Ehricke did studies for General Dynamics in 1962 that showed Mars could be a competitive source for nearly all materials we mine on Earth today. Gerard K. O'Neil showed the Moon could build orbiting colonies at Lagrange Points in the Earth Moon system and they would make solar power stations to beam energy to Earth at costs that would make power too cheap to meter in 1972.


Not shown by your cite. Claim fails.





Raw materials aren't going to cut it as an
export unless there is a return on that investment.


Correct. Prices are rising on Earth and Earth's ability to produce low cost steel will be non-existant in 64 years according to the experts. Some believe shortages may be arriving in as little at 12 years.


It's always going to be cheaper to do it here


No it isn't, especially since nuclear fission can be used to make power too cheap to meter in an environment blanketed with deadly radiation and served by artificial intelligence all things will be too cheap to meter. Earth will be a natural place to send things. Especially since its easy to launch things off mars with a magnetic launcher.


Yes, if you ignore the costs of things (power to cheap to meter) and
assume magical technologies that don't exist you can do anything. But
the rest of us are constrained by reality.


once you factor in
transport costs.

You've obviously never heard of mass drivers and non rocket launchers.. With Mars' low gravity and low atmospheric density, it is a natural choice to send products back to Earth.


Poppycock. Magical mass drivers that can fire tons of things at Earth
which will then automagically teleport themselves down to the surface
upon arrival do not exist.


It's why there will be a local steel industry on
Mars; because it costs too bloody much to bring it from Earth.

It will be cheaper to make steel on Mars than on Earth in the first place because of the super abundance of hematite (iron makes Mars red) and the super abundance of energy - due to the ability to use nuclear fission in ways that make it too cheap to meter, and the super abundance of labour due to the widespread use of AI and robotics.


Nonsense. There is no more an 'abundance of hematite' on Mars than
there is on Earth. You're going to have to find ores. What you're
talking about using is a very poor grade of ore. Yes, if you ignore
ore quality, ignore the cost of production, and ignore the cost of
transport, you can do anything. But it is only in the fantastical
MookieWorld that such things can be ignored.


http://journals.lww.com/asaiojournal...cial.9 6.aspx


Over 40 years old and irrelevant to your claims.


http://www.osti.gov/scitech/servlets/purl/805252=


Over a decade and a half old and irrelevant to your claims.


https://www.researchgate.net/profile...7583975b89.pdf


Iron concentrations need to be about 4x higher than this reports in
order to be considered 'workable' iron ores. Thanks for disproving
your own point.


http://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/r...cs-atlas-robot


Irrelevant to your claims. If it was relevant we would be using such
robots to mine here. We don't.



Sorry Mook,


I feel your love.


Keep your hands to yourself!


Haha - always misinterpreting - never getting it right.


Haha - always havering - never getting it right.



but this entire idea is b.s.


No it isn't.


Yes it is.

No it isn't.


Yes it is.


Think about the transportation costs.

Okay

Get back to me when
the price of steel on Earth exceeds a million dollars a tonne and we
can start thinking about it.

Nonsense. You have prejudices only. Its obvious when power and labour are too cheap to meter, and your sitting in the metal of a desert made of iron - that you will make iron and sell it to those who want it. At 40 GJ per ton to reduce it from hematite and 16 GJ per ton to launch it to Earth on a mass driver - using nuclear fission technology that's 70 years old TODAY - with no worries about radiation and the environment - iron will arrive from Mars more cheaply than its made on Earth TODAY - with zero environmental costs.


Yes, if you assume magic and ignore costs you can make any claims you
like. But they have nothing to do with our present reality and merely
point out how out of touch with that you are.

Seek help.





I don't know how you got to
visions of Mars colonies sending quite common raw materials like iron,
silicon, aluminum, and etc. to earth by railgun, but it's just not going
to be viable economically.


That's your problem that you don't know something. Perhaps if you listened to those who know more than you - that might help.


Great advice. One wishes YOU would take it once in a while.


I do. That's why I'm able to point to peer reviewed literature for EVERYTHING I say. You? Not so much!


We've seen how that works for you, above. Mostly "peer reviewed
literature" that is decades out of date, incorrect, and doesn't
support your claims in the first place. You then pretend everything
is free and magic exists in order to make your case.



More below.


Nope. Dumping the Magic Mookie Multiplication Math.

Massive MookSpew Munched

See? You ignore your betters. I guess that's one coping mechanism for you.


No, I get tired of wading through voluminous spew from havering
bampots like you.


Dated does not mean outdated.


Actually, when it comes to things like space, it kind of does.


WIth an evergrowing population of ever wealthier individuals, it is doubtful that the Earth will long supply the material needs of humanity. For that reason it is imperative to develop the means to meet this ever growing need from resources found in interplanetary space.


You and I will both be long dead by the time that even starts to look
like a problem.

Its a problem today. Water and steel prices are rising. We're paying vastly more for energy today than we were in the 1960s.

This is rather like the whole 'peak oil' thing.

We're paying vastly more for energy today than we were in the 1960s. Prices fluctuate as as demand erodes. We are already past the peak.

'Proven reserves' has always been around 30 years worth for the last
half century or so. That's because we find new sources and improve
technology to be able to economically recover poorer deposits.

You have forgotten that oil prices were over $100 per barrel for a time. What do you think happened then? That's right, those people who needed oil to be low cost to survive, WENT OUT OF BUSINESS. This is called erosion of demand. Once that demand is gone, it won't come back easily. When demand falls below supply because of energy intensive business going out of business, prices moderate, but they never return to earlier epoch and even minor increases in demand spike prices very rapidly. We are in the post peak world whether you want to admit it or not.

ALL
natural resources tend to work this way. You talk a lot about
hematite on Mars, but the concentrations in your own citations are way
too poor to be viable mining sources.

Meteorites crashing into the surface create huge globs of iron that are sitting on the surface. You can mine iron efficiently with a broom and a magnet on Mars today. You cannot do that on Earth.



If items on Mars cannot be made and delivered to Earth more cheaply than Earth based resources, then there is no reason to ever go to Mars. Fortunately mass driver technology and power plant technology exists TODAY that make that possible.


No reason in your tiny mind, anyway. So YOU should not go.

You're the one who has a small mind if you cannot admit that the resources off world are vastly greater than remain on Earth. That is a very powerful and important reason to go to Mars and the other worlds of the solar system today. To make life better for everyone on Earth and bring about a trophic change in our environment.


Robots are transforming mining today


But not the kind of robots your citation above was about.

Nonsense. Mining robots mine materials.


http://fortune.com/2015/08/25/intern...ning-industry/


Big headline, no data. Talk about what they're "going to do".

You have no idea what you're talking about. By the time Musk has colonists going to Mars, those colonists will have AI driven mining equipment, manufacturing equipment, and equipment to blast materials back to Earth cheaply to anyone who wants to pay for it.


https://www.academia.edu/356502/Appl...ti cal_Review


Conventional robotic applications like dumpers and drills. Nothing
like your original citation above.

They're minijng robots. You said mining robots didn't exist. So STFU! lol.


http://www.eumicon.com/images/EUMICON_2015/Robotics%20in%20mining%20-%20Henryk%20Karas.pdf":ddddd


First slide - "Probably robots..." Not what your original cite talked
about.

Anyone can see that mining robots exist and that when Musk sends settlers to Mars mining robots will go with them along with rail guns to send materials back to Earth to anyone who wants to pay for it. The price of such items will be less than getting the same item on Earth, and the environmental cost to Earth's biosphere will be ZERO. You're the one who's a freaking itdiot who can't see that.


http://www.insurancejournal.com/news.../04/325475.htm


A few hundred robotic trucks worldwide and not the type of robots your
original cite was about.

You said mining robots didn't exist or they would be in use today. Fact is, they're in use today and robots will be used widely on Mars to make materials on Mars more cheaply than they can be made on Earth. With compact rail guns these materials will available to people on Earth more cheaply than the terrestrial variety.


Heat shield rock - 98% iron
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ore_re..._Meteorite.jpg

98% pure iron - created by a meteorite crashing into the iron rich surface of mars and spewing out pure iron.


And here we see Mookie's problem. He just doesn't read very well. The
cite is about AN IRON METEORITE. His last sentence above is simply
wrong and has nothing to do with his cite.

You are unaware of how the meteorite was formed. It was formed from an impactor impacting the iron rich surface of Mars and the energy blasting metal far and wide. Putting aside the formation of the chunk of iron and the far larger number of iron 'berries' found on the surface of Mars, ask yourself the following question; How many pure iron chunks like this exist on Earth? The answer is - none. How many pure iron chunks like this exist on Mars, well with only 4 rovers covering a grand total of 50 km with the horizon 3.4 km away - we've discovered one big one like the one I show in the figure, and thousands of smaller ones littering the landscape. So, like I said, with a broom and a magnet, you could sweep up 98% pure iron process it into steel and shoot it out of a General Atomics Rail gun at 14,000 mph and send over a billion dollars woth of steel back to Earth at virtually no added cost.




General Atomics - MHD Fission Reactor
https://fusion.gat.com/pubs-ext/AnnS...ETC/A23593.pdf


Do you have a point? I've known about MHDs for decades.

The point is they're not in use on Earth for a variety of very good reasons.. Those reasons don't apply on Mars. Supporting the notion that energy on Mars will be very cheap indeed.


General Atomics - Rail Gun - fires a bullet fast enough to escape the moon's surface and hit Earth. Can be carried on the back of a truck, on a ship, or in a rocket.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNLrQhn5nLo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygHN-vplJZg

Mach 7 - 2.3 km/sec - exceeds the escape velocity of the Moon. So, this device carried to the Moon, and powered up, would easily be capable of driving a lot of mass to Earth dirt cheap.


No.

Yes.

I've been to Dahlgren and know about this program.

You obviously have not been read into the programme otherwise you'd keep your mouth shut about what you know first hand.

You
apparently do not.

I know what Deputy Secretary of Defense Robert Work said about it. It achieves Mach 7 in Earth's atmosphere after exiting the barrel. That's 2.3 km/sec - lunar escape velocity. Now according to BAE CEO Jerry DeMuro the system is capable of attaining velocities in vacuo far higher. High enough to send projectiles from the Moon to Earth or from Mars to Earth. A well designed mass launcher would fit inside a 40 foot container and when deployed on Mars could send $1 billion a year worth of iron and other materials from Mars to any point on Earth.

Face it, Mookie.

I do, I face the fact every time I post here that you're a freaking moron.

Anything that makes mining cheaper

cannot generally be used on Earth

Very true.

All due to environmental, social or resource constraints that exist on Earth but NOT MARS. That is WHY you go to the trouble of getting your ass to Mars, as Buzz Aldrin said recently in his visit to my adopted home town Christchurch recently.

or allows the use
of poorer ores on Mars

Mars has a superabundance of iron and other ores that are rare on Earth. A handful of rovers examining closely less than 200 sq km of land have discovered vast quantities of pure iron produced by meteorite bombardment. Generalising from this experience we can expect sufficient iron already reduced on Mars' surface ready to be swept up with a broom and a magnet, melted down and fired to Earth at virtually no added cost - in quantities approaching $1 billion per year.

will do the same thing here on Earth.

Cannot do the same thing here on Earth you mean. Why deploy robots for example on Earth where energy is 100x more expensive, resources are 1/100th as plentiful, and you run the risk of terrorists, dictators, and worse disrupting your operation?

Interplanetary travel will never be able to compete in cost with
trains and ships,

A General Atomics Blitzer cannon modified for use on Mars ALREADY DOES. You are so out of touch it must hurt being you.

so Mars transportation costs to Earth will always be
much higher.

Transport costs from Mars using a mass driver like the Blitzer is less costly than any competing form of transport. Combined with very low cost energy made possible by forms of nuclear power impossible to deploy on Earth, a ton of anything from Mars is delivered to any one on Earth at a cost of $3.34 per ton.

That that means is that 'commodities' are always going
to be cheaper to produce here on Earth

Nonsense. Take a look at this glacer;

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...mage_field.JPG

A huge amount of water. A very modest power source melts that ice, gathers silica from the area to make glass bottles, and fires sixteen 750 milliliter glass bottles to Earth at a price of 3 cents - and they are delivered to anyone on Earth at a cost of $80 - do this, and you can generate over a billion per year.

and they're more valuable on
Mars than they are shipping them to Earth where they cannot compete in
price.

Things on Mars will certainly be cheaper than they are on Earth, which is why poor people will go to Mars to get rich. Things made on Mars and sent to Earth will be cheaper than things made on Earth because the labour costs, energy costs, social costs, and environmental costs, are far higher.

Obviously you are not only not an engineer, but you are not
even adequate as a 'business guy'.

Obviously you're an idiot. I would suggest you look at my patents and the businesses I've successfully created before making any more unfortunate comments. Otherwise you can SMD.


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

Jonathan wrote:


When fossil fuel costs become excessive then
a truly useful commodity like space solar power
can become practical and the free markets will
have a new reason to build large structures
in space.


It's cheaper to build your solar power plant down here. Again, the
cost of lifting all that stuff from Earth in the first place makes
space-based solar far too expensive. Hell, Earth-based solar is too
expensive right now and space-based costs at least an order of
magnitude more.

And why would a solar power satellite require people?


--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw