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

Jeff Findley wrote:

In article ,
says...

Have you factored in the cost of spending 20% of the
annual disposable income of the entire United States
federal budget times 20 years to build the Mars Colonies?

Clearly he has not. All this is "free":


I think Mookie misunderstood the cry for 'Free Mars'.

1. The many nuclear reactors on Mars.
2. The "rail guns" to launch the payloads.
3. The manufacturing plant that makes the "rounds" (including propulsion
and zero boil off LOX/LH2 storage, computer, sensors, communications,
and etc)
4. The mining facilities and processing facilities for the payload.
5. The tracking and communications arrays to keep the rounds on target
during their long journey back to earth.
6. And on and on and on...

The glaring flaw in all of this is that even if the above were all
possible, why the hell would a Mars colony devote all of the above
effort to support the earth? Why not use the above facilities to
produce goods for Mars?


Indeed. Mars would be better off expanding Mars' capabilities and
spending the money to bring more people to Mars. Mookie sees it as
almost no people and all self-replicating AI.


Somehow, on top of the science fiction of firing projectiles at earth
that provide useful payload, Mook has also completely suspended basic
economics on Mars.


Mookie believes that economics is a conspiracy theory.


Because people born and bred on Mars would never
turn against their colonial overlords that are bleeding Mars dry of
natural resources. right? It's not like that's ever happened before on
earth, has it? ;-)


People in California are protesting Nestle bottling water there and
selling it outside California. Now scale that to Mars....

Mook's gone right 'round the bend again...


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

William Mook wrote:

On Tuesday, December 27, 2016 at 1:29:54 PM UTC+13, Jonathan wrote:
On 12/26/2016 6:03 PM, William Mook wrote:
On Monday, December 26, 2016 at 11:44:10 AM UTC+13, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...

General Atomics markets a rail gun that shoots 30 rounds per second 25 pounds each at Mach 7. This exceeds escape velocity of the moon already. In the vacuum of space or the near vacuum of Mars such a system easily achieves muzzle speeds 3x higher. These permit projectiles to travel between worlds at very low cost.

Teledyne and Cubic already market a self guided 50 cal round. These impart up to 150 m/s delta ver to bullets ising MEMs solid rockets. Adapted to use the water and energy resources of the moon and Mars using cryogenic ZBO lox/lh2 MEMs rockets these easily provide sufficient guidance to deliver products anywhere required cheaply.

30 rounds per second x 25 pounds per round x 3600 seconds per hour x 8766 hours per year =
23.66 billion pounds per year per launcher to nearly a billion location each year.

This is on par with a fleet of bulk ocean carriers or railroads with the added capacity to deliver r directly to consumers.

So there is no reason to believe off world colonies cannot trade with Earth as easily as power or information can be delivered to Earth by off world assets.

This all sounds quite unaffordable compared to utilizing the resources
we have here on earth.

Projecting an object from the surface of Mars at 14,100 mph in the right direction at the right time transports it to Earth. This requires 62 kWh of energy for a 25 pound round. With energy 'too cheap to meter' created on Mars with high temperature very low cost nuclear power plants, this costs 1/9th cent per kWh. 6.8 cents per round. 0.275 cents per pound - $5.50 per ton.


Also, once you shoot these things at earth, how do you propose to get
them safely to the surface?

I gave you the pointers to Teledyne's work on the EXACTO 50 cal round that is fired out of a cannon and guides a round imparting 220 mph to the round AFTER it leaves the barrel, using MEMS based solid propellant rockets, to guide the round to a precisely defined location using on board inertial guidance and optical sensors that detect a laser designator. General Atomics uses similar technology to guide its rounds in flight to close precisely on moving targets. Clearly ultra-low-cost MEMS based rockets are used in disposable delivery cannisters to deliver 25 pounds of cargo to precisely defined locations on Earth.

Having been launched from the Martian surface into a trans-Earth trajectory at 14,100 mph the round will fall toward Earth orbit. After falling 48,732,000 miles toward the Sun over 260 days, the round arrives at the top of Earth's atmosphere at 27,400 mph. By chosing the right trajectory, the arrival time can be varied by 24 hours. So, that the arrival longitude will be at the trajectory arrival point at the time of arrival. By chosing the arrival plane, the latitude of the arrival point is selected. This gives us complete freedom of choice of selection of the landing longitude and latitude. This brings the round to the VPA - vacuum perigee altitude. This is the point the round would reach over the Earth if it had no atmosphere. Momentum would carry the round back into interplanetary space if the Earth had no atmosphere. However, the Earth DOES have an atmosphere, and the VPA is well inside Earth's atmosphere. To achieve safe arrival of the round the round has a L/D
of
1.6 through the speeds it operates in the Earth's atmosphere. It uses this lift to fly along an entry corridor that brings the round to rest over the longitude and latitude of its delivery point. The round is basically conical in shape. It will enter the atmosphere blunt end forward. Its center of pressure is offset from its center of gravity to a stable trim attitude producing lift. By rotating around the center of gravity the lift can be varied in direction to guide the round while passing through the Earth's atmosphere. After falling 48.7 million miles it arrives at the desired VPA + or - 15 miles. After entering the atmosphere the round has about 1,000 miles and 2.5 minutes of controllability. It falls until it reaches the first pull up point where it reaches maximum gee force and heat load. It then skips to about 400,000 feet altitude where it fall back down. This increases the range and controllability of the round allowing it to get closer to its landing point. It
will then descend to its second pull up point where it slows to subsonic speeds and descends to its landing point. At 23,500 feet altitude it acquires its landing point via GPS and falls to it, igniting its MEMS based engines to brake its speed landing at zero altitude and zero speed precisely at the desired location.

Operationally, Martian producers will fire as many rounds as possible into the transfer orbit to Earth after conferring with the Mars/Earth exchanges for these products. Those products will be placed into a flight inventory during their 260 days transit, and qualified buyers may purchase these at wholesale prices. Those wholesalers will offer products for sale, delivered at the time of arrival, to retailers. Those retailers will then receive products at selling locations throughout Earth. Those locations and quantities will be scheduled for arrival to those retail locations after payment is received.

The delta vee required to achieve precise delivery is less than 335 mph. The delta vee required to bring the round to rest safely is 585 mph. A total of 920 mph. Each round has the capacity to alter its speed by 2,236 mph using MEMS based bipropellant cryogenic rockets with LOX/LH2 zero boil off cryogenic storage on board. The cost of this is very small. The 1.10 pound shell, contains 25 pound payload and 4.90 pounds LOX/LH2 propellant. The 90 pounds of thrust produced by the shell's rockets come from a 1.5 square inch of MEMS based 300 psi pressure fed rockets that produce 60 psi of thrust. At $0.10 per square inch, the propulsion system costs $0.15 per round. Total smart packaging cost less than $1.00 per round. It takes 15 kWh to make the 0.754 pounds of Hydrogen and 4.146 pound of Oxygen from 3.4 quarts of water. At 1/9th cent per kWh this adds 1-2/3 cents per round for propellant costs.


Have you factored in the cost of spending 20% of the
annual disposable income of the entire United States
federal budget times 20 years to build the Mars Colonies?

No, because this isn't required.


Because in MookieWorld it's all magical.


NASDAQ for example trades $60 million worth of stock each day. Over the course of a year over $21.9 trillion is traded by this exchange alone! NASDAQ completes an IPO for a new company once every six days and raises an average of $260 million per start up company. A total of $16 billion per year. The value of 3,100 companies last year rose by $2.04 trillion an average of $658 million per company.


Which has nothing to do with anything being discussed. Marketroid
MookSpew.

a Million Lines of Magical MookSpew Munched


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

On Tuesday, December 27, 2016 at 2:46:34 PM UTC+13, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...

Have you factored in the cost of spending 20% of the
annual disposable income of the entire United States
federal budget times 20 years to build the Mars Colonies?

Clearly he has not.

Plainly you haven't read my analysis of the ability of markets like NASDAQ to organise the 172,850 people who hold $20.8 trillion in liquid assets, all of which have $30 million in liquid assets or more (excluding property). They invest $16 billion a year in NASDAQ IPOs. They invest $60 billion per year in mining and raw material exploration. They invest $650 billion per year in oil and gas exploration.


All this is "free":

1. The many nuclear reactors on Mars.

Nuclear material is free for a while certainly. Since 1987 the USA and Russia have signed a number of treaties that have reduced nuclear inventories by 80%. As a result a total of 800,000 kg of weapons grade fissile material sufficient to produce 27.2 trillion kWh of energy is available to qualified users. Highly-enriched uranium from weapons stockpiles has been displacing some 8,853,000 kg of U3O8 production from mines each year, and met about 13% to 19% of world reactor requirements.

Regulations have restricted their broader use on Earth, not so on Mars.

The use of MHD generators using fissile materials for space power and propulsion applications is well defined. Phoebus was built in 1950 and produced over 4 GW of power and massed 8,500 kg, producing 470 kW per kg with 60% weight fissile material. At full power this means the unit must be refuelled every 3.5 years. The cost of $20,000 per kg translates to 4.25 cents per peak watt. With a 3.5 year life span and continuous output a power plant with 71% efficiency (achieved with a combination of MHD and Brayton cycle) this translates to 1/6th cent per kWh - with terrestrial construction. Of course automated construction on Mars using Martian raw materials will be less - about $1,000 per kg - which gives us 1/100th cent ultimate cost. But the first generation, will be perfectly adquate to kick start the Mars colonies.

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/c...9920005899.pdf
http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc742076/


2. The "rail guns" to launch the payloads.

Nonsense. I used the cost General Atomics quoted the USN for the Blitzer.

3. The manufacturing plant that makes the "rounds" (including propulsion
and zero boil off LOX/LH2 storage, computer, sensors, communications,
and etc)

Not free at all, I've included those costs for first genration and then later generation.

4. The mining facilities and processing facilities for the payload.

Not free in my analysis. I've included all costs in full.

5. The tracking and communications arrays to keep the rounds on target
during their long journey back to earth.

Not free in my analysis. Their cost is fully accounted for.

6. And on and on and on...

Yes, every detail has been accounted for in my discussions.

The glaring flaw in all of this is that even if the above were all
possible, why the hell would a Mars colony devote all of the above
effort to support the earth?

For the money they pay them because they have to pay back the capital it took for them to get there in the first place. That's how economics works. You approach the 172,850 people who hold $20.8 trillion in liquid assets and ask them to invest a portion of their holdings in your enterprise and then you must pay them back in some way.

Why not use the above facilities to
produce goods for Mars?

False choice, to the extent buyers are on Mars already, you sell to them. However, the amount of money needed to create a city on Mars is as large as creating a city anywhere! In order to have that city pay you've got to find sufficient buyers for goods and services that are produced in that city to pay for its construction. This is how every boom town in every resource rich region ever gets built.

Somehow, on top of the science fiction of firing projectiles at earth

Its not science fiction. Its a fact of astrodynamics. Fire a projectile at the right speed, in the right direction at the right time, on the surface of Mars and you will hit a well defined point on Earth 260 days later. With modest flight control and making use of existing GPS capability the projectile arrive as accurately as any round is guided on Earth today.

that provide useful payload, Mook has also completely suspended basic
economics on Mars.

No I've applied basic economics. The question was asked at the outset, what do you do on Mars? How do you pay for a population and a city on Mars? Well, you do it the same way you pay for any population in any city anywhere on Earth. You find out what it is the people can export to existing markets.

Because people born and bred on Mars would never
turn against their colonial overlords that are bleeding Mars dry of
natural resources. right? It's not like that's ever happened before on
earth, has it? ;-)

You're talking out of two sides of your mouth. You say I've ignored basic economics and then complain I am repeating what is standard practice on Earth. Which is it? lol. The fact is, people do get angry when they are bled dry of resources. This has caused a lot of turmoil in the present era of limited resources. Fact is, in a free and fair market, people receive as much as they get and both end up ahead, which is what motivates the transaction in the first place. In an era of unlimited resources it won't be possible for the Earth to bleed Mars dry of steel for example. The likely demand for steel by Earth's population will be small in comparison to its eventual use on Mars, notwithstanding the importance of terrestrial demand to EARLY DEVELOPMENT of the planet.


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 Tuesday, December 27, 2016 at 5:36:58 PM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Monday, December 26, 2016 at 11:44:10 AM UTC+13, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...

General Atomics markets a rail gun that shoots 30 rounds per second 25 pounds each at Mach 7. This exceeds escape velocity of the moon already. In the vacuum of space or the near vacuum of Mars such a system easily achieves muzzle speeds 3x higher. These permit projectiles to travel between worlds at very low cost.

Teledyne and Cubic already market a self guided 50 cal round. These impart up to 150 m/s delta ver to bullets ising MEMs solid rockets. Adapted to use the water and energy resources of the moon and Mars using cryogenic ZBO lox/lh2 MEMs rockets these easily provide sufficient guidance to deliver products anywhere required cheaply.

30 rounds per second x 25 pounds per round x 3600 seconds per hour x 8766 hours per year =
23.66 billion pounds per year per launcher to nearly a billion location each year.

This is on par with a fleet of bulk ocean carriers or railroads with the added capacity to deliver r directly to consumers.

So there is no reason to believe off world colonies cannot trade with Earth as easily as power or information can be delivered to Earth by off world assets.

This all sounds quite unaffordable compared to utilizing the resources
we have here on earth.

Projecting an object from the surface of Mars at 14,100 mph in the right direction at the right time transports it to Earth. This requires 62 kWh of energy for a 25 pound round. With energy 'too cheap to meter' created on Mars with high temperature very low cost nuclear power plants, this costs 1/9th cent per kWh. 6.8 cents per round. 0.275 cents per pound - $5.50 per ton.


I'll just note that even while still assuming magic technology
(electricity on Mars being an order of magnitude cheaper than
electricity on Earth due to numbers you apparently grabbed out of your
ass)

No, there are 800,000 kg of weapons grade plutonium with 27.2 trillion kWh of energy available for essentially no charge from the inventories of weapons carried by the US and former USSR. At present regulations restrict their use on Earth to about 19% of the world's demand for uranium. These restrictions do not occur on Mars. Free of the regulatory regime for terrestrial plants, we can use designs that are vastly more efficient than terrestrial power plants. The Phoebus reactor massed 8,500 kg (of which 60% was enriched fissile material) and produced 4,100 MW of power. Modern vapor core MHD generators using enriched fissile materials can do better. The cost of these plants are $20,000 per kg and their life span is 42 months before refueling. This is a cost of 1/6th cent per kWh applying usual discount rates. ASSUMING 100% replacement of the unit after 42 months. These are very conservative numbers.

your claimed cost per ton has grown by two orders of magnitude
and your 30 rounds per second every second of every day has collapsed
to "the right direction at the right time".

I gave references that showed Blitzer had achieved 14,000 rounds per minute in tests - which is 233 rounds per second. I quoted only 30 rounds per second. Again, a very conservative number.


Also, once you shoot these things at earth, how do you propose to get
them safely to the surface?

I gave you the pointers to Teledyne's work on the EXACTO 50 cal round that is fired out of a cannon and guides a round imparting 220 mph to the round AFTER it leaves the barrel, using MEMS based solid propellant rockets, to guide the round to a precisely defined location using on board inertial guidance and optical sensors that detect a laser designator. General Atomics uses similar technology to guide its rounds in flight to close precisely on moving targets. Clearly ultra-low-cost MEMS based rockets are used in disposable delivery cannisters to deliver 25 pounds of cargo to precisely defined locations on Earth.


50 caliber rounds aren't fired out of cannons. General Atomics uses
aerodynamics (not Mookie's Magical MEMS Rockets (tm)) to guide its
rounds.

I gave a link to an EXACTO round being aimed away from its target, and the MEMS rockets lighting up to bring the round back onto its target.

General Atomics calls this a 50 caliber cannon;

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/MiVOsil3Ioo/hqdefault.jpg

So, I don't know what you're yammering about saying 50 cal rounds aren't fired out of cannons.

Anyone with even a passing understanding of this technology knows that both MEMS based aerodynamics and MEMS based rocketry is used to guide these rounds. So, you're not thinking clearly as well as having insufficient information to actually understand what is being said here.

In article ,
says...

On Tuesday, December 27, 2016 at 2:46:34 PM UTC+13, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...

Have you factored in the cost of spending 20% of the
annual disposable income of the entire United States
federal budget times 20 years to build the Mars Colonies?

Clearly he has not.

Plainly you haven't read my analysis of the ability of markets like NASDAQ to organise the 172,850 people who hold $20.8 trillion in liquid assets, all of which have $30 million in liquid assets or more (excluding property). They invest $16 billion a year in NASDAQ IPOs. They invest $60 billion per year in mining and raw material exploration. They invest $650 billion per year in oil and gas exploration.

Bull****. They want a return on investment. That means you have to
*pay back* any money they give, *plus interest*. Even startup money
ain't free!

All this is "free":

1. The many nuclear reactors on Mars.

Nuclear material is free for a while certainly...

Bull****. Nuclear material which can be used for warheads just isn't
the same as what you'd want in a reactor. And the US and Russia are
damn unlikely to give anyone massive quantities of weapons grade nuclear
material to be shot into space.

Regulations have restricted their broader use on Earth, not so on Mars.

The use of MHD generators using fissile materials for space power and
propulsion applications is well defined...

"Well defined" isn't free to develop, build, and operate on Mars.

2. The "rail guns" to launch the payloads.

Nonsense. I used the cost General Atomics quoted the USN for the Blitzer.

Cost to build something on earth is *not* the same as the cost to have
one built on Mars or delivered to Mars! Also, is the exit velocity the
same as you need? No? Then add *more* cost!

3. The manufacturing plant that makes the "rounds" (including propulsion
and zero boil off LOX/LH2 storage, computer, sensors, communications,
and etc)

Not free at all, I've included those costs for first genration and then later generation.

Maybe the cost to turn materials into "rounds", but for the
manufacturing plants themselves, on Mars? Nope! You ignored that.
It's not just the plants, but everything needed to build and support
them. The cities you'd need on Mars are going to cost a crap ton of
money, which you completely ignore.

4. The mining facilities and processing facilities for the payload.

Not free in my analysis. I've included all costs in full.

Bull****. Mining and processing facilities don't exist in absentia.
All that support equipment, resources, people, and etc. will cost money.

5. The tracking and communications arrays to keep the rounds on
target
during their long journey back to earth.

Not free in my analysis. Their cost is fully accounted for.

Bull****. It's not just what's on the "rounds" it's the big antennas,
computers, people, and etc. you need on earth and/or Mars. No one is
going to trust "autonomous rounds" that could be used as kinetic
velocity weapons. Tracking (trust but verify) on earth costs money!

6. And on and on and on...

Yes, every detail has been accounted for in my discussions.

Bull****. Anything you do on Mars to mine and process materials cheaply
would be even cheaper to do on earth. This whole idea is is based on a
false assumption.

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.

William Mook wrote:

On Tuesday, December 27, 2016 at 2:46:34 PM UTC+13, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...

Have you factored in the cost of spending 20% of the
annual disposable income of the entire United States
federal budget times 20 years to build the Mars Colonies?

Clearly he has not.

Plainly you haven't read my analysis of the ability of markets like NASDAQ to organise the 172,850 people who hold $20.8 trillion in liquid assets, all of which have $30 million in liquid assets or more (excluding property). They invest $16 billion a year in NASDAQ IPOs. They invest $60 billion per year in mining and raw material exploration. They invest $650 billion per year in oil and gas exploration.


Plainly irrelevant.


All this is "free":

1. The many nuclear reactors on Mars.

Nuclear material is free for a while certainly.


Not.


Since 1987 the USA and Russia have signed a number of treaties that have reduced nuclear inventories by 80%. As a result a total of 800,000 kg of weapons grade fissile material sufficient to produce 27.2 trillion kWh of energy is available to qualified users. Highly-enriched uranium from weapons stockpiles has been displacing some 8,853,000 kg of U3O8 production from mines each year, and met about 13% to 19% of world reactor requirements.


There is no such isotope as U308. At the peak of the arms race there
were about 70,000 warheads between the US and Russia. There are
typically 3-4 kg of fissile material in a weapon pit; even old
composite pits from back in the late 1940's didn't use more than 8 kg.
So 800,000 kg of weapons grade fissile material would be enough to
make 200,000 warheads, which is almost three times as many as the
total weapon inventories of the US and USSR at their peaks. We
haven't used HEU in weapons for half a century, so I doubt you're
seeing very much of it coming out of weapons programs.


Regulations have restricted their broader use on Earth, not so on Mars.

The use of MHD generators using fissile materials for space power and propulsion applications is well defined. Phoebus was built in 1950 and produced over 4 GW of power and massed 8,500 kg, producing 470 kW per kg with 60% weight fissile material. At full power this means the unit must be refuelled every 3.5 years.

Phoebus was designed to run for MINUTES, not years. That 4GW is not
electrical power, but thermal power. These are two quite different
things. The longest that level of power was produced for was 12
minutes in a total run of around half an hour. Your 'refuel time' is
bull****.

Magical MookSpew Munched

Your cost numbers and calculations are 'magical' and not based on
anything in the real world.


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

William Mook wrote:

On Tuesday, December 27, 2016 at 5:36:58 PM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Monday, December 26, 2016 at 11:44:10 AM UTC+13, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...

General Atomics markets a rail gun that shoots 30 rounds per second 25 pounds each at Mach 7. This exceeds escape velocity of the moon already. In the vacuum of space or the near vacuum of Mars such a system easily achieves muzzle speeds 3x higher. These permit projectiles to travel between worlds at very low cost.

Teledyne and Cubic already market a self guided 50 cal round. These impart up to 150 m/s delta ver to bullets ising MEMs solid rockets. Adapted to use the water and energy resources of the moon and Mars using cryogenic ZBO lox/lh2 MEMs rockets these easily provide sufficient guidance to deliver products anywhere required cheaply.

30 rounds per second x 25 pounds per round x 3600 seconds per hour x 8766 hours per year =
23.66 billion pounds per year per launcher to nearly a billion location each year.

This is on par with a fleet of bulk ocean carriers or railroads with the added capacity to deliver r directly to consumers.

So there is no reason to believe off world colonies cannot trade with Earth as easily as power or information can be delivered to Earth by off world assets.

This all sounds quite unaffordable compared to utilizing the resources
we have here on earth.

Projecting an object from the surface of Mars at 14,100 mph in the right direction at the right time transports it to Earth. This requires 62 kWh of energy for a 25 pound round. With energy 'too cheap to meter' created on Mars with high temperature very low cost nuclear power plants, this costs 1/9th cent per kWh. 6.8 cents per round. 0.275 cents per pound - $5.50 per ton.


I'll just note that even while still assuming magic technology
(electricity on Mars being an order of magnitude cheaper than
electricity on Earth due to numbers you apparently grabbed out of your
ass)

No, there are 800,000 kg of weapons grade plutonium with 27.2 trillion kWh of energy available for essentially no charge from the inventories of weapons carried by the US and former USSR.

Bull****. That's three times the amount of fissile material that was
in the entire weapon inventories of the US and USSR combined when they
were at their peaks. And what does exist is not available 'free'.


At present regulations restrict their use on Earth to about 19% of the world's demand for uranium. These restrictions do not occur on Mars. Free of the regulatory regime for terrestrial plants, we can use designs that are vastly more efficient than terrestrial power plants. The Phoebus reactor massed 8,500 kg (of which 60% was enriched fissile material) and produced 4,100 MW of power. Modern vapor core MHD generators using enriched fissile materials can do better. The cost of these plants are $20,000 per kg and their life span is 42 months before refueling. This is a cost of 1/6th cent per kWh applying usual discount rates. ASSUMING 100% replacement of the unit after 42 months. These are very conservative numbers.


These are bull**** numbers.

your claimed cost per ton has grown by two orders of magnitude
and your 30 rounds per second every second of every day has collapsed
to "the right direction at the right time".

I gave references that showed Blitzer had achieved 14,000 rounds per minute in tests - which is 233 rounds per second. I quoted only 30 rounds per second. Again, a very conservative number.


No, you didn't provide any such reference, because it cannot do that
and GA has no intention of ever trying to achieve those ridiculous
rates of fire. TEN ROUNDS PER MINUTE.


Also, once you shoot these things at earth, how do you propose to get
them safely to the surface?

I gave you the pointers to Teledyne's work on the EXACTO 50 cal round that is fired out of a cannon and guides a round imparting 220 mph to the round AFTER it leaves the barrel, using MEMS based solid propellant rockets, to guide the round to a precisely defined location using on board inertial guidance and optical sensors that detect a laser designator. General Atomics uses similar technology to guide its rounds in flight to close precisely on moving targets. Clearly ultra-low-cost MEMS based rockets are used in disposable delivery cannisters to deliver 25 pounds of cargo to precisely defined locations on Earth.


50 caliber rounds aren't fired out of cannons. General Atomics uses
aerodynamics (not Mookie's Magical MEMS Rockets (tm)) to guide its
rounds.

I gave a link to an EXACTO round being aimed away from its target, and the MEMS rockets lighting up to bring the round back onto its target.


Yes, you did. They're being fired out of SNIPER RIFLES, you ignorant
****.


General Atomics calls this a 50 caliber cannon;

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/MiVOsil3Ioo/hqdefault.jpg


Then they're idiots. Cite for them calling this thing a 'cannon'?


So, I don't know what you're yammering about saying 50 cal rounds aren't fired out of cannons.


Of course you don't. That's because you say something and then insist
you're right even when you've said something stupid.


Anyone with even a passing understanding of this technology knows that both MEMS based aerodynamics and MEMS based rocketry is used to guide these rounds. So, you're not thinking clearly as well as having insufficient information to actually understand what is being said here.


Blitzer doesn't shoot .50 BMG rounds, you silly ****.


--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

On Wednesday, December 28, 2016 at 3:40:36 PM UTC+13, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Tuesday, December 27, 2016 at 2:46:34 PM UTC+13, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...

Have you factored in the cost of spending 20% of the
annual disposable income of the entire United States
federal budget times 20 years to build the Mars Colonies?

Clearly he has not.

Plainly you haven't read my analysis of the ability of markets like NASDAQ to organise the 172,850 people who hold $20.8 trillion in liquid assets, all of which have $30 million in liquid assets or more (excluding property). They invest $16 billion a year in NASDAQ IPOs. They invest $60 billion per year in mining and raw material exploration. They invest $650 billion per year in oil and gas exploration.

Bull****.

No, its true. These people make more money than most, and they do so by taking prudent risks in developing the infrastructure on this planet. Anyone that reliably provides them the prospect of returns for prudent risks on other planets would receive a fair hearing and gain traction.

They want a return on investment.

Of course, my entire analysis is based on that.

That means you have to
*pay back* any money they give, *plus interest*. Even startup money
ain't free!

True. Any investment purchases a proposed income stream. That income stream is discounted at some rate depending on the risks involved and the discount applied opportunities elsewhere.

THE VALUE OF A DOLLAR

Current discount rate for this planet for working capital is around 9.34% - so that means that a piece of equipment that generates $1 per year for 50 years can be expected to sell for the day it switches on for $10.58. So, $10.58 buys $50.00 of revenue earned at a rate of $1 per year over 50 years..

THE VALUE OF DEVELOPING A DOLLAR

Venture capital rates of return are double your money every two years with a five year exit strategy. So, to DEVELOP that piece of equipment can cost up $4.20 over the five years;

$0.374 Year 1
$0.529 Year 2
$0.748 Year 3
$1.058 Year 4
$1.496 Year 5

$4.205 Total

So, this gives the rate of return for any five year development programme that's high risk, and the value of any article that generates an income of $1 per year.

Space based assets have essentially zero cost once they are deployed. They are totally automatic and solar powered for the most part. They survive for 30 to 50 years, without maintenance. This is the model of the telecom satellites, and other hardware deployed in the field, and in space, that earn money.

VALUE OF A GLOBAL HOT SPOT

So, for example, the world's telecommunications business generates $1.68 trillion in sales per year at present, and delivers 1.1 Zetabytes of data to humanity each year. This is 270 terabits per second. Its the capacity of present day Li-Fi hardware, and could concievably be the basis of an orbiting satellite network.

So, using the factors above, a functioning global hotspot that collected this revenue around the world today would be worth $1.68 trillion x 10.58 = $17.77 ONCE IT WERE FUNCTIONING. Now, to DEVELOP A FUNCTIONING INFRASTRUCTURE we would spend no more than $7.07 trillion;

$0.63 trillion year 1
$0.89 trillion year 2
$1.26 trillion year 3
$1.77 trillion year 4
$2.52 trillion year 5

$7.07 trillion TOTAL

Over a five year term.

ACTUAL COST MUCH LESS - COMMUNICATIONS

With launch costs of $90 million for putting up 116,000 pounds of payload and a dozen satellites massing 9,500 pounds each and costing $19 million each - $318 million per launch - and 720 satellites placed with 60 launches over a two year period, with a three year design build, that's a total of $19 billion - That's 1/6% of the total the telecom market supports on Earth. So, even a 5% market penetration with hardware costing 3x as much would meet the minimum criteria for investment by this group.

THE VALUE OF ELECTRICITY

Humanity 23,536,500,000,000 kWh per year and pays $0.11 per kWh on average creating $2.589 trillion per year of revenue. That revenue stream can be sold to the ultra-high net worth individuals ONCE IT IS OPERATING for $27.39 trillion. That asset can be DEVELOPED IN FIVE YEARS at a cost of up to $10.88 trillion at the following annual costs

$ 0.96 trillion year 1
$ 1.36 trillion year 2
$ 1.93 trillion year 3
$ 2.73 trillion year 4
$ 3.87 trillion year 5

$10.88 trillion total

ACTUAL COST MUCH LESS - ELECTRICITY

This is 2,685 billion watts. A 3 billion watt solar power satellite massing 150 tons has been described elsewhere. Nearly 1,000 of these satellites placed on orbit dominates the energy business. At $600 million per satellite and $150 million per launch, each satellite costs $750 million and generates $2.92 billion per year over 20 years. A very large return on investment. A commitment to twenty satellites at a cost of thirty satellites during the five year construction period is a $22.5 billion money requiring VC rates of return. 20 satellites earn $59.6 billion per year. This gives them a value of $630.58 - Now, $22.5 billion spent over five years at a rate of $4.5 billion per year;

risk return

$4.50 $25.45 year 1
$4.50 $18.00 year 2
$4.50 $12.72 year 3
$4.50 $9.00 year 4
$4.50 $6.36 year 5

$22.50 $71.54 total

11.4% of the value created provides VC rates of return for the first 20 satellites.

EARN ENOUGH FROM 20 POWER SATELLITES TO BUY UP AEROSPACE BUSINESS IN TOTAL

As the revenue stream from the 20 satellites is monetised for the over $630..6 billion in cash, that cash is used to acquire the major aerospace companies going forward.

76.6 UTX
55.2 BA
26.4 LMT
26.2 GD
21.9 PCP
18.5 NOC
17.5 RTN
10.6 GR
9.1 COL
8.4 LLL

270.4 Total

This $270.4 billion can be defrayed by splitting these companies along functional lines, putting them together for efficient operation along functional capacities, and spinning off those companies at greater value because of higher efficiencies, that are not useful for space travel and off world development.

EXPAND CORE SPACE FARING COMPETENCY

The balance of the capital is used to expand core competencies so that the company may launch 200 power satellites per year for the next 15 years. This captures the world's electrical power markets and provides a revenue and asset base with which to develop off world resources by expanding the value of the company by $6.3 trillion per year over each of those 15 years.

1. United Technologies (UTX): 76.6B market cap, P/E Ratio 16.04, 2.3% dividend, +6.86% year-to-date
UTX is involved in everything from elevators and escalators to helicopters and fuel cell systems.

2. Boeing (BA): 55.2B market cap, P/E ratio 18.42, 2.25% dividend, +15.9% year-to-date
Among other things, BA researches and develops military aircraft and helicopters as well as space missile systems.

3. Lockheed Martin (LMT): 26.4B market cap, P/E ratio 8.56, 2.88% dividend, +11.2% year-to-date
LMT businesses include space, telecommunications, electronics, aeronautics and energy.

4. General Dynamics (GD): 26.2B market cap, P/E ratio 10.19, 2.65% dividend, +0.71% year-to-date
Combat vehicles, weapons systems and munitions and even shipbuilding are among GD products and services.

5. Precision Castparts (PCP): 21.9B market cap, P/E ratio 21.8, .08% dividend, +10% year-to-date
Finally, perhaps one you haven't heard of: PCP manufactures metal components and products, parts used in jet engines.

6. Northrop Grumman (NOC): 18.5B market cap, P/E ratio 9.75, 3.14% dividend, +9.6% year-to-date
NOC provides aerospace, electronics, information systems and shipuilding to global government and commercial customers.

7. Raytheon (RTN): 17.5B market cap, P/E ratio 8.72, 3.53% dividend, +7.09% year-to-date
RTN provides mission systems integration for communications and intelligence systems as well as mission support services.

8. Goodrich (GR): 10.56B market cap, P/E ratio 16.82, 1.36% dividend, -3.3% year-to-date
Passenger restraint systems, pump and engine control, de-icing systems and aircraft evacuation systems are among the GR offerings and products.

9. Rockwell Collins (COL): 9.1B market cap, P/E ratio 16.30, 1.61% dividend, +3.14% year-to-date
In addition to communications and avionics, COL produces in-flight entertainment systems.

10. L-3 Communications Holdings (LLL): 8.4B market cap, P/E ratio 9.39, 2.26% dividend,+13.9% year-to-date Command, control, communications, intelligence and surveillance and reconnaissance systems. Main customers are government agencies.

KEY STRATEGIC DEVELOPMENTS

Communications satellites network after power satellite;

Since a power satellite operates independently across a vast range of places visible to it from space, this is the first step. This pays for a heavy lift launcher, and that launcher system can then deploy a communications satellite network at some point after the first 20 power satellites.

Interplanetary ion stage;

The power satellite can provide power beaming to an ion rocket stage creating an efficient reusable interplanetary booster that works with the heavy lift launcher. This provides the capacity to send payloads at very low cost across the solar system.

Mass drivers on Mars;

THE VALUE OF STEEL

Placing mass drivers on Mars allows Mars to provide the world's 1.68 billion tons of steel from Mars each year. This produces $458 billion in revenue each year. Thus if a fully automated system of production and transport is deployed that produces 1.68 billion tons of steel from Mars each year and delivers it to market at zero added cost, the value of that infrastructure is worth $4.87 trillion at today's discount rates and terms.

A five year development program that has VC rates of return associated with the amount placed at risk would cost no more than $1.92 billion as follows;

$171.38 billion year 1
$242.37 billion year 2
$342.77 billion year 3
$484.75 billion year 4
$685.54 billion year 5

$1,926.84 billion TOTAL


All this is "free":

1. The many nuclear reactors on Mars.

Nuclear material is free for a while certainly...

Bull****.

$1.92 trillion to develop all the capacities needed isn't bull****. Its what capturing the steel industry of Earth using off world assets can spend and make venture capital rates of return.

Nuclear material which can be used for warheads just isn't
the same as what you'd want in a reactor.

Not true for space based reactors. High temperature compact and lightweight nuclear reactors are possible ONLY when you use weapons grade plutonium and uranium. These are illegal to use on Earth due to weapons regulations. They're required for space use. Please read the references I cited on the Phoebus and MHD reactors described. These produce 470 kW per kg of mass (214 kW per pound) and consist of 60% fissile materials by weight - which gives them a 42 month fuel supply at full power. Modern technologies have advanced considerably over what was achieved by NERVA and ROVER in the 1950s - with peak specific power 3x this amount per unit weight.

And the US and Russia are
damn unlikely to give anyone massive quantities of weapons grade nuclear
material to be shot into space.

Cite? Subcritical assemblies shot into space using highly reliable reusable manned launchers, that are on a fast track to Mars is virtually the ideal disposal methodology, especially if others pay for the transport.

Regulations have restricted their broader use on Earth, not so on Mars.

The use of MHD generators using fissile materials for space power and
propulsion applications is well defined...

"Well defined" isn't free to develop, build, and operate on Mars.

I'm not tracking what you're saying here. Both Russia and the USA have cooperated on gas core fission reactors that are extremely powerful and lightweight. Qualified commercial developers would be welcomed by both parties to make use of this technology off world.

2. The "rail guns" to launch the payloads.

Nonsense. I used the cost General Atomics quoted the USN for the Blitzer.

Cost to build something on earth is *not* the same as the cost to have
one built on Mars or delivered to Mars!

In case you haven't noticed, everything that humanity sends to Mars is as present built on Earth. This is a requirement of all things we send to Mars initially, until we have a self sufficient infrastructure in place. I used the cost of the General Atomics quotes. The cost I used per copy is multiplied by a suitable factor to take these initial costs into account. The total budget required to replace terrestrial sources of steel is less than the value of capturing the terrestrial steel markets with off world supplies.

Also, is the exit velocity the
same as you need? No? Then add *more* cost!

I did. The engineering is quite straightforward. Any competent engineer can see that.

3. The manufacturing plant that makes the "rounds" (including propulsion
and zero boil off LOX/LH2 storage, computer, sensors, communications,
and etc)

Not free at all, I've included those costs for first genration and then later generation.

Maybe the cost to turn materials into "rounds", but for the
manufacturing plants themselves, on Mars? Nope! You ignored that.

Not at all! I've included it all.

It's not just the plants, but everything needed to build and support
them.

Correct.

The cities you'd need on Mars are going to cost a crap ton of
money, which you completely ignore.

No I don't. The programme to make use of Martian iron to replace terrestrial steel industry with a Martian steel industry can cost $1.92 trillion over five years and still provide investors with a venture capital rate of return over the period as they sell it out to investors at that time for $4.87 trilion once revenue is realised, to those seeking less risky returns for their money.


4. The mining facilities and processing facilities for the payload.

Not free in my analysis. I've included all costs in full.

Bull****.

Not at all. A detailed analysis shows that following the programme above, we can replace the 2 million people working on Earth in the steel industry with about 19,000 persons on Mars with highly automated production methods, and nuclear power systems to power nuclear mills and nuclear mass drivers, to deliver steel anywhere on Earth at virtually no added costs.

Mining and processing facilities don't exist in absentia.
All that support equipment, resources, people, and etc. will cost money.

Correct, and since the total cost to DEVELOP all that is less than $1.9 trillion, and there is over $21 trillion in risk capital available among those with over $30 million in liquid assets, we're good to go, once competency is demonstrated.

5. The tracking and communications arrays to keep the rounds on
target
during their long journey back to earth.

Not free in my analysis. Their cost is fully accounted for.

Bull****.

The cost for ALL the infrastructure is vastly less than $1.9 trillion it could cost and still provde VC rates of return.

It's not just what's on the "rounds" it's the big antennas,
computers, people, and etc. you need on earth and/or Mars. No one is
going to trust "autonomous rounds" that could be used as kinetic
velocity weapons. Tracking (trust but verify) on earth costs money!

The internet of things will be extended to Mars. Optical broadband will connect all rounds in a vast meshnet as part of their guidance system. Every round that's launched will be recorded and its characteristic state vector will be reported continuously passing messages from round to round via li-fi and made available to qualified users via encrypted blockchain. The vast costs you imagine are in your imagination only. The costs of verifiable tracking and even allocation of costs in the unlikely event of loss, will be done automatically.

6. And on and on and on...

Yes, every detail has been accounted for in my discussions.

Bull****.

You are full of bull**** that's clear. I'm not.

Anything you do on Mars to mine and process materials cheaply
would be even cheaper to do on earth.

No it isn't because there are people and living creatures on Earth that have been here using up things for a long long time. Not so on Mars. For this reason energy costs are higher on Earth, resource costs are higher on Earth, labour costs are higher on Earth, regulatory costs are higher on Earth, social costs are higher on Earth, and so forth. You have it backwards. Anything we do on Mars to mine and process materials cheaply will always be less expensive than it could ever be done on Earth. This is the entire motivation to develop resources on Mars FOR Earth. If what you said were even remotely true, no one would EVER invest in development of off world resources for any reason. We would always find it more convenient and profitable to stay at home.

This whole idea is is based on a
false assumption.

You are projecting your own behaviour again. Your ideas are based on the false assumption you're making about costs always being cheaper on Earth. They are not, and if we are to see the economic development of off world resources, they cannot be that way.

On Wednesday, December 28, 2016 at 6:44:41 PM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Tuesday, December 27, 2016 at 2:46:34 PM UTC+13, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...

Have you factored in the cost of spending 20% of the
annual disposable income of the entire United States
federal budget times 20 years to build the Mars Colonies?

Clearly he has not.

Plainly you haven't read my analysis of the ability of markets like NASDAQ to organise the 172,850 people who hold $20.8 trillion in liquid assets, all of which have $30 million in liquid assets or more (excluding property). They invest $16 billion a year in NASDAQ IPOs. They invest $60 billion per year in mining and raw material exploration. They invest $650 billion per year in oil and gas exploration.


Plainly irrelevant.

Toally relevant. They're buying potential revenue streams discounted for risk. At present the world is paying 9.34% for new capacities and 41.41% to DEVELOP new capacities, with a five year development window. This means that a device that operates without cost for 50 years and generates $1 per year in saleable product or service, is worth $10.58 the day it switches on. To DEVELOP that machine over a five year period allocating 20% of the value per year, you can spend $4.20 over the period,

To develop a machine that generates $1.00 per year over 50 years;

Year 1: $0.37
Year 2: $0.53
Year 3: $0.75
Year 4: $1.06
Year 5: $1.49

Total: $4.20

Sold to a long term low risk investor for $10.58

So, you can look at 1.6 billion tons of steel sold each year earning $458 billion per year in terms of this analysis. The day the Martian steel mills switch on they're worth $4,847 billion. Those mills can be DEVELOPED for $1,926 billion as follows;

$171.4 billion - year 1
$242.4 billion - year 2
$342.7 billion - year 3
$484.7 billion - year 4
$685.6 billion - year 5

$1,926.6 billion - total

Achieve these costs, with zero recurring costs, for development and operation, and you will have access of $21 trillion owned by 180,000 people worth $30 million and more on the planet.



All this is "free":

1. The many nuclear reactors on Mars.

Nuclear material is free for a while certainly.


Not.

Please read the calculation of costs for taking delivery of the nuclear materials. For space applications of the type we're describing there are even subsidies, I have not included these.



Since 1987 the USA and Russia have signed a number of treaties that have reduced nuclear inventories by 80%. As a result a total of 800,000 kg of weapons grade fissile material sufficient to produce 27.2 trillion kWh of energy is available to qualified users. Highly-enriched uranium from weapons stockpiles has been displacing some 8,853,000 kg of U3O8 production from mines each year, and met about 13% to 19% of world reactor requirements.


There is no such isotope as U308.

Its not an isotope, its a molecule. Triuranium octoxide (U3O8) is a compound of uranium. It is present as an olive green to black, odorless solid. It is one of the more popular forms of yellowcake and is shipped between mills and refineries in this form.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/informa...lear-fuel.aspx


At the peak of the arms race there
were about 70,000 warheads between the US and Russia.

Weapons are only part of the total stockpile of weapons grade materials.

There are
typically 3-4 kg of fissile material in a weapon pit; even old
composite pits from back in the late 1940's didn't use more than 8 kg.
So 800,000 kg of weapons grade fissile material would be enough to
make 200,000 warheads,

correct. The actual number of warheads is less than the amount materials on hand to build materials.

which is almost three times as many as the
total weapon inventories of the US and USSR at their peaks.

Correct, the amount of weapons grade materials is about 3x amount of actual weapon cores.

We
haven't used HEU in weapons for half a century, so I doubt you're
seeing very much of it coming out of weapons programs.

Your understanding and knowledge of these matters is severely lacking.


Regulations have restricted their broader use on Earth, not so on Mars.

The use of MHD generators using fissile materials for space power and propulsion applications is well defined. Phoebus was built in 1950 and produced over 4 GW of power and massed 8,500 kg, producing 470 kW per kg with 60% weight fissile material. At full power this means the unit must be refuelled every 3.5 years.

Phoebus was designed to run for MINUTES, not years.

NERVA demonstrated that nuclear thermal rocket engines were a feasible and reliable tool for space exploration, and at the end of 1968 SNPO certified that the latest NERVA engine, the NRX/XE, met the requirements for a human mission to Mars. This meant that it was capable of operating for years both as primary propulsive power and as a bimodal power source to provide continuous power for the mission.

Brookhaven National Labs, who also build compact high efficiency, nuclear reactors for submarines, aircraft carriers, and other vehicles, also produces similar reactors that operate reliably for years.

That 4GW is not
electrical power, but thermal power.

Correct.

These are two quite different
things.

Heat energy may be turned to many purposes.

The Phoebus was designed to produce thrust by heating hydrogen gas and expelling it. Thrust is a different thing than electricity or heat. However, the NRX design certified for Mars expeditions in 1968 was a bimodal system capable of generating both electricity and thrust as needed. The nuclear reactors on an aircraft carrier and nuclear submarine produce heat as well, but that is converted to mechanical power and electrical power. The MHD generator we would use on today's mars industrial infrastructure, turns vapor core fission process into electricity with 71% efficiency, and had high enough temperature output on the cold side to be industrially useful besides.. Phoebus was limited to solid core nuclear thermal rocket operation, with the addition of a brayton cycle turbine. Modern MHD systems, designed by General Atomics, when used as designed, will triple the productivity of the Phoebus reactor and provide very low cost power at about 1% of the cost of power on Earth.

The longest that level of power was produced for was 12
minutes in a total run of around half an hour.

You're confusing and confabulating test runs with how the mars mission was designed to fly. In 1968 the SNPO certified NRX as flight ready for a Mars mission. This was a bimodal system that produced both power and thrust as needed for the duration of the mission.

Your 'refuel time' is
bull****.

No it isn't. Refuel times on most reactors run between 18 and 42 months.

Magical MookSpew Munched

Nothing magical about it. Just science.

Your cost numbers and calculations are 'magical' and not based on
anything in the real world.

They're based on papers I cited.

William Mook wrote:

On Wednesday, December 28, 2016 at 3:40:36 PM UTC+13, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Tuesday, December 27, 2016 at 2:46:34 PM UTC+13, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...

Have you factored in the cost of spending 20% of the
annual disposable income of the entire United States
federal budget times 20 years to build the Mars Colonies?

Clearly he has not.

Plainly you haven't read my analysis of the ability of markets like NASDAQ to organise the 172,850 people who hold $20.8 trillion in liquid assets, all of which have $30 million in liquid assets or more (excluding property). They invest $16 billion a year in NASDAQ IPOs. They invest $60 billion per year in mining and raw material exploration. They invest $650 billion per year in oil and gas exploration.

Bull****.

No, its true. These people make more money than most, and they do so by taking prudent risks in developing the infrastructure on this planet. Anyone that reliably provides them the prospect of returns for prudent risks on other planets would receive a fair hearing and gain traction.


Which your 'case' doesn't do.

They want a return on investment.

Of course, my entire analysis is based on that.


You mean your con, don't you?

snip MookSpew


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