Author Topic: Inhabitating Mars by 2030? What for?  (Read 6968 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline sainbablo

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 93
  • Country: pk
Re: Inhabitating Mars by 2030? What for?
« Reply #75 on: January 19, 2019, 02:11:30 pm »
You are correct. I might have expressed myself poorly. To lift 2 ton on the moon you would need the same force as lifting 333 kg on the earth.



How   would  the gold  rich nations on  earth  react  to  gold  import from moon?
Would it  affect  their economic  power  and influence?
And if  they feel  threatened and  their   global interests   are   adversly  affected would they  remain  silent
spectators?

This  is a sure prescription for introducing terrestrial  chaos of   various  kind among  nations  of  the   world.


 

Online rstofer

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6372
  • Country: us
Re: Inhabitating Mars by 2030? What for?
« Reply #76 on: January 19, 2019, 05:17:28 pm »
You mean he same way that england owns north america?
Quote
There was some kind of skirmish a long while back where we separated from England.  Really, it worked out better for both sides.

Quote
Once the Chinese build their base on the moon, that flag becomes even more meaningless than it already was. Besides there are international treaties that says no country owns the moon (outer space treaty) that the US have signed (just like most other countries).

Treaties come, treaties go, some stay longer than others.  If there is something there of value, we own it and that's the way we'll treat it.

The Chinese have the financial resources to populate the Moon.  The US doesn't have the will even though we have the resources.  We continue to spend too little on science and exploration.
 

Offline cdev

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5082
  • Country: 00
Re: Inhabitating Mars by 2030? What for?
« Reply #77 on: January 19, 2019, 05:41:40 pm »
I suspect what would be needed for commercial exploitation of the Moon to occur -driving Western corporations interest, would be some short-term profit-seeking justification for a corporation to exploit it. Like the "unobtanium" room temperature superconductor that was discovered on the fictional Pandora.

"Use it or lose it" basically.

Use always being seen as the most remunerative commercial activity possible. Period.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2019, 06:34:46 pm by cdev »
"What the large print giveth, the small print taketh away."
 

Online rstofer

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6372
  • Country: us
Re: Inhabitating Mars by 2030? What for?
« Reply #78 on: January 19, 2019, 06:05:00 pm »
Rstofer,

I suspect what would be needed for commercial exploitation of the Moon to occur -driving Western corporations interest, would be some short-term profit-seeking justification for a corporation to exploit it. Like the "unobtanium" room temperature superconductor that was discovered on the fictional Pandora.

<snip>

This argument is being used every day all around the world to allow extraction of natural resources, land grabbing for agribusiness or even just old fashioned real estate speculation.

Yup!  Ain't capitalism wonderful?

I have always had the the belief that if a thing is worth doing, it is worth doing for money.
 

Online coppercone2

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3274
  • Country: us
  • 💎
Re: Inhabitating Mars by 2030? What for?
« Reply #79 on: January 19, 2019, 06:41:34 pm »
I wonder if there are savage processing methods you can use to get rare earth elements from the moon without pollution.

Big ass nuclear reactors come to mind.

I mean getting any element that requires alot of energy to extract, even aluminum, titanium, etc. If you built a big reactor there maybe you can just shoot down lumps into a shallow ocean for recovery at lower environmental cost. If it occurs in like 0.001% concentration on earth but its all over the place, it means you need to mess up ALOT of soil to get it. The moon is pretty damn useless compared to ruining another ecosystem. Eventually you just end up making hazards, either by bringing up toxic elements from the earth, leaving big holes, killing desert turtles, whatever.

Like if you do giant molten rock electrolysis baths or whatever.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2019, 06:43:58 pm by coppercone2 »
 

Offline cdev

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5082
  • Country: 00
Re: Inhabitating Mars by 2030? What for?
« Reply #80 on: January 19, 2019, 06:46:20 pm »
The problem is, lots of things that a government should do, or which most people think they should do, they can't do any more.

The current state of affairs is broken, seriously broken in certain areas.

I cant really explain this any more without getting into the realm of the political.

"What the large print giveth, the small print taketh away."
 
The following users thanked this post: StillTrying

Offline cdev

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5082
  • Country: 00
Re: Inhabitating Mars by 2030? What for?
« Reply #81 on: January 19, 2019, 07:01:01 pm »
We should be thinking about our environmental footprint on the Moon too.

One argument might hold we should behave with as much care or even more than we have on Earth because much of the worst pollution on Earth occurred when we didn't know any better or didn't know that things we were doing were making it unhealthy, and now we do.

I think that is debatable, more so than here, BUT, I really do think that we should not allow large scale activities in an atmosphere of no regulation as happened here on Earth, which many people would see as being unfair given as those who came before as they put it, got to exploit the hell out of others, but now the door is being shut to their doing the same thing to those unfortunate enough to come after them.

Someone is radiating entitlement here, but even more so I think one group, the 'haves' is trying to pretend to be two groups and engaged in this false dispute to draw attention away from the very important problem of lack of adequate regulation in the light of whats best for all of us.

Conveniently, there are no poor people on the Moon, yet but there likely will soon be, as they will be the ones impressed into labor to pay their debts off in space.

Consequently, decisions made will impact them. As well as reduce their wages. (See debt peonage)

History shows that is what happens.  So the fact that no poor people exist there today does not mean that the 'haves' positions on everything (the oft whined about division between the global south haves and global north haves for example, is a fake one, much less real than the one between the all powerful global haves and powerless have-nots, basically the other 99% of everyone. The poor and soon to be poorer are the world of today's young people, who likely would be the ones actually on the ground on the Moon or Mars in a few years having to deal with the situation.)

By no means should a Wild West deregulatory trend on Earth, which is driven by the falling value of human labor and therefore, human life, be replicated with absolutely no sanity checking out into space where it then becomes customary practice..

Would it be unfair to ask that we all not pollute more than the best practice that is economically feasible?  The problem is, that is a moving target, how do we define it? Also, if its defined by a cost benefit analysis its basically defined by how much worth we put on an individual human life and why. A value that may shift as average wages lost due to some change decline. (as that may be based on the average amount of employment times wages which may decline, as lifespans perhaps shorten. Wages may also decline if the demand for labor falls and/or whom provides that labor shifts towards lower and lower cost providers which would be likely as profit margins fall.)

Similar problems confront all other kinds of regulation, particularly those requiring that anybody observe international norms. Instead of norms that require least burdensome practices on people, they define least restrictive practices by their cost to business. Ignoring the possible costs to people for the most part.

If the wrong choice was made, the effect would be in the case of radiation and nuclear pollution, to lock in changes which made living on the Moon or Mars even more dangerous.

Living on the Moon or Mars is already expected to be very difficult and costly and adding additional costs would be likely to be unwise, even if then some were able to extort much more profit from the would be exploiters of its mineral resources, it might well be a very bad idea to allow them to create that situation. As the net effect would likely be to require wages fall more and more in order to allow the economic exploitation to be accomplished. This might cause a rush to say, criminalize more and more behavior attaching huge fines to it. In order to make it possible to send those guilty of these new crimes to work off their debts on the Moon, applying their wages first to the cost of the ir upkeep, then to treating the common diseases which everybody working there would end up having, and only last to reduce the debt. This is what the human race's history tells us would happen.

I wonder if there are savage processing methods you can use to get rare earth elements from the moon without pollution.

Big ass nuclear reactors come to mind.

I mean getting any element that requires alot of energy to extract, even aluminum, titanium, etc. If you built a big reactor there maybe you can just shoot down lumps into a shallow ocean for recovery at lower environmental cost. If it occurs in like 0.001% concentration on earth but its all over the place, it means you need to mess up ALOT of soil to get it. The moon is pretty damn useless compared to ruining another ecosystem. Eventually you just end up making hazards, either by bringing up toxic elements from the earth, leaving big holes, killing desert turtles, whatever.

Like if you do giant molten rock electrolysis baths or whatever.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2019, 07:37:56 pm by cdev »
"What the large print giveth, the small print taketh away."
 

Online rdl

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2670
  • Country: us
Re: Inhabitating Mars by 2030? What for?
« Reply #82 on: January 19, 2019, 07:26:48 pm »
I have always had the the belief that if a thing is worth doing, it is worth doing for money.

If anything can get a large scale Moon base built, with factories and such, it will be money. If left to the government we'll end up with less than what is currently in Antarctica.


We should be thinking about our environmental footprint on the Moon too.

Say what?

 

Offline StillTrying

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2117
  • Country: fi
  • Country: Broken Britain
Re: Inhabitating Mars by 2030? What for?
« Reply #83 on: January 19, 2019, 07:30:58 pm »
I think the only advantages the moon has over earth is very clear skies and less plastic pollution, so it's not worth going. >:D
CML+  That took much longer than I thought it would.
 

Offline Kapitonov

  • Newbie
  • Posts: 3
  • Country: ca
Re: Inhabitating Mars by 2030? What for?
« Reply #84 on: January 19, 2019, 08:03:28 pm »
Mankind was born on Earth. It was never meant to die here. The end of Earth will not be the end of us. (Interstellar)  :-\
 

Online james_s

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9211
  • Country: us
Re: Inhabitating Mars by 2030? What for?
« Reply #85 on: January 19, 2019, 08:45:17 pm »
I'll be shocked if we don't kill ourselves off long before the planet dies. Humans are essentially parasites, we carve up the planet and consume resources at a hugely greater rate than that at which they are created.
 

Online coppercone2

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3274
  • Country: us
  • 💎
Re: Inhabitating Mars by 2030? What for?
« Reply #86 on: January 19, 2019, 09:31:01 pm »
im not saying to trash the moon but i don't think the regulation will need to be as strict as something a nuclear power plant 20 miles away from a major metropolitan city.

And I don't think the moon has any seismic activity etc, so you can bury it deep and you don't have earthquake hazards. You would need to bury it deep in case of asteroids anyway. It might be actually feasible to shoot nuclear waste into the sun from the moon too. Just do it from the dark side lol. Or just recycle all that shit. I am pretty sure we did not recycle more in the past in regards to radioactive materials with breeder reactors and stuff because it costs too much to license one.

and there won't be weird no-income terrorists to worry about.

https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2013/11/f4/mining_bandwidth.pdf

Mining energy use is 1.26 quadrillion BTU per year.

I think that's 220 billion barrels of crude. Same as all the car energy used in the world. Thats in the USA only.

And you can use the energy to power a badass bigger lunar particle collider. Then maybe you can begin antimatter production for industrial use.

Imagine that shit, you get a shipment of titanium shot down from the moon into the ocean near you.

Start using more titanium, when people figure out how to use it stuff will last way longer and there will be less junk then rusty steel. You can use start to use super alloys for everything. Lunar machining would be cleaner too IMO, you can even make flat bar and stuff up there, and girders maybe. The chips would easily vacuum away.

Fuck carbon fiber lol. I am sick of all the plastics engineering developments shit. We should be able to buy bananas in titanium cans. If you can get cheap metals down here then you could stop some of the plastic pollution too. Even less oil use. And imagine stuff stops being freaking plated and you can get a solid titanium shower head for cheap? Instead everything has like a 5 year life because its fucking plated. Valves too.

Even if the moon is fully radioactive when its being used who cares so long there is no containment issues? You can go easy on the shielding and shit. Just stay away. I think we have enough problems here on earth. You can run absolutely vicious fusion reactors.

I mean sustainable wood sucks too, you deplete the dirt. Mining destroys the land. Fuck the moon topography. All those sustainable resources suck too, solar occupies alot of land area if you wanna meet the same requirement, its better to outsource this crap and use less here.

If you have like 1 GW nuclear reactor you can use some seriously wasteful practices.

Then when that's done you can eventually leapfrog to some other useless planet like Venus when the technology develops further to get all the bad shit away from earth when people are flying around in their own home made space craft. Or move it to mars and terraform it.

ALso lunar workers can easily wear a ton of lead protection and be highly mobile so its safer then earth. Everything can be built like 600% heavier with existing motors for exoskeletons etc.


youtube.com/watch?v=ejorQVy3m8E
« Last Edit: January 19, 2019, 10:15:44 pm by coppercone2 »
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 29665
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: Inhabitating Mars by 2030? What for?
« Reply #87 on: January 19, 2019, 10:30:22 pm »
I suspect what would be needed for commercial exploitation of the Moon to occur -driving Western corporations interest, would be some short-term profit-seeking justification for a corporation to exploit it. Like the "unobtanium" room temperature superconductor that was discovered on the fictional Pandora.
"Use it or lose it" basically.
Use always being seen as the most remunerative commercial activity possible. Period.

Simple, first step is tourism.
There are countless well off people who would pay hundreds of thousands for a 1-2 week trip to the moon.
The same cannot be said for Mars, which is why a permanent Mars base won't be sustainable in the near future.
 

Offline cdev

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5082
  • Country: 00
Re: Inhabitating Mars by 2030? What for?
« Reply #88 on: January 19, 2019, 10:33:13 pm »
Dave, I think you're likely right, tourism to the Moon, especially, could become a big thing, the experience of a lifetime.

If I had the money I would certainly want to do that. Sounds like a really great idea for honeymooning couples too! It would probably generate big bucks.

However, it might be hard to figure out a way to have that fund anything else, like science, under the current situation. I don't know. I just suspect that might be the case.

 :palm:

coppercone2,

The Moon does have some seismic activity. A fair amount, unfortunately, some of the data went missing but a fair amount of it was collected and some survived.

One person is compiling it all together.

Also, heavy shielding material would cost a lot to get to the Moon.

Also, as far as I understand where oil comes from, there never having been large forests of biomass to turn into it, there is no oil or coal on the Moon. Nor large amounts of oxygen to allow burning it. Nor cheese, unfortunately.

The observatory out of the Earth's radio din sounds like a great idea, though.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2019, 10:51:08 pm by cdev »
"What the large print giveth, the small print taketh away."
 

Online james_s

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9211
  • Country: us
Re: Inhabitating Mars by 2030? What for?
« Reply #89 on: January 19, 2019, 11:01:56 pm »
Simple, first step is tourism.
There are countless well off people who would pay hundreds of thousands for a 1-2 week trip to the moon.
The same cannot be said for Mars, which is why a permanent Mars base won't be sustainable in the near future.

It would be interesting to see some actual numbers here. I suspect the cost is likely to be closer to tens of millions per passenger, once technology is developed to get the cost way down. How many people have both that kind of disposable money and a desire to vacation on the moon? Some for sure, but more than a few dozen? Even if it was a few hundred, for viable tourism you need many thousands, and you need a steady stream of them. Once a few hundred people have gone on trips to the moon will the novelty and exclusivity wear off? The first Apollo mission had a huge number of people watching it, by the final missions that had fallen way off, it had become almost routine by that point.
 

Online coppercone2

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3274
  • Country: us
  • 💎
Re: Inhabitating Mars by 2030? What for?
« Reply #90 on: January 19, 2019, 11:38:59 pm »
they say there is uranium on the moon. If there is uranium on the moon you can make radiation shielding out of depleted uranium, it works better then lead IIRC. Nicer engineering material too I think because it won't gall so easily, you can machine it and it will hold up shape unlike lead and be super strong (they make tank armor out of it) and have a very high melting point. Then you use a much smaller shield to shield from the DU. And you use the radioactive part.

You would make the (bulk) equivalent of heavy concrete (iron filled concrete) with depleted uranium and regolith. Reactor plates could use solid DU, which would hold up much better to any core emergencies then lead which can melt and expand and cause all sorts of issues in a hot reactor. The last thing you want is your lead lining to melt and flow out of the major containment part because something exploded and cracked the chamber.

Everything needs to be sealed up for atmosphere anyway (at least nominally) so it will be much easier to clean any machining dust and stuff then it is on earth, since filters would be standard. And you can run the thing in a vacuum so it wont burn with oxygen. It should be much safer then in the atmosphere. The dust also won't be carried away by winds and stuff if it breaches.

I really think it would be possible to run a really clean and safe nuclear industry there. Everything should stay on the top, the only sources of mixing I think are meteorites which are infrequent. It would be easy to get machines to gather radioactive materials if there is a spill.. those apollo footprints are still there right? 50 years later?

If you use water for a coolant it will freeze instantly/quickly and there is no water table or ocean to contaminate, you would just need machines in place to collect all the garbage and process it.

I think as it is, on earth right now the biggest hazards to radioactive breaches are winds, rains.. since if you spill waste it will be washed into the ground by the water or plumes get carried by the winds. Instead of sweeping it up you need to collect many feet of top soil. On the moon this should not happen so long the operation is handled carefully.

Interestingly too, you can probobly put the entire coolant system into a deep freeze to 'clean' it from bacterial growth, since even the bacteria will die if they are frozen to negative alot. It would just need to be designed to handle this. Drain it into a oversized freeze tank connected to a smaller reactor, let the plumbing freeze, let the water freeze, then thaw it out electrically with the mini-reactor when the biologists say its ok.
« Last Edit: January 20, 2019, 12:04:58 am by coppercone2 »
 

Offline cdev

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5082
  • Country: 00
Re: Inhabitating Mars by 2030? What for?
« Reply #91 on: January 19, 2019, 11:43:07 pm »
Eco-tourism is really popular. It is showing no signs of slacking off.

Simple, first step is tourism.
There are countless well off people who would pay hundreds of thousands for a 1-2 week trip to the moon.
The same cannot be said for Mars, which is why a permanent Mars base won't be sustainable in the near future.

It would be interesting to see some actual numbers here. I suspect the cost is likely to be closer to tens of millions per passenger, once technology is developed to get the cost way down. How many people have both that kind of disposable money and a desire to vacation on the moon? Some for sure, but more than a few dozen? Even if it was a few hundred, for viable tourism you need many thousands, and you need a steady stream of them. Once a few hundred people have gone on trips to the moon will the novelty and exclusivity wear off? The first Apollo mission had a huge number of people watching it, by the final missions that had fallen way off, it had become almost routine by that point.

There are more millionaires now than at any time in history. All those losses to the middle class have gone to the top.

I bet if some credible company started a waiting list and asked people to pony up say $100k per person for a spot on it, to show they were serious, with the price set to $5M the first year and then $2m for the next 5 and $1M thereafter, they would make hundreds of millions overnight as people ponied up the money to get on the list.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2019, 11:47:48 pm by cdev »
"What the large print giveth, the small print taketh away."
 

Online james_s

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9211
  • Country: us
Re: Inhabitating Mars by 2030? What for?
« Reply #92 on: January 20, 2019, 03:58:31 am »
That still might not be enough though. We could be talking billions per flight in costs, I don't think a lot of people truly grasp how big a billion is. The Apollo program only carried 3 guys at a time, and the launch vehicles were enormously expensive.
 

Offline cdev

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5082
  • Country: 00
Re: Inhabitating Mars by 2030? What for?
« Reply #93 on: January 20, 2019, 04:58:56 am »
Concentration of wealth means an M economy, world wide, so luxury goods will be the healthiest area of the economy. And dollar stores. The market for luxury goods may be the only market there is, everybody else may be too poor to buy new, or fly, so it may have to sustain the whole rest of the economy and the civilian aerospace industry. (Of course, the military and secrecy, etc, will be booming, though.)

Also, think of it this way, Earth will be depressing, people will really want and need to put that distance between them and their problems and extended families, who will likely be dependent on them for support, for a short while, for their mental health.

On the Moon everything will be cleaner (and worth keeping that way) people will be lighter, the environment will literally take the weight of the world off of their shoulders for a short while.

Think about it a bit.
« Last Edit: January 20, 2019, 05:13:15 am by cdev »
"What the large print giveth, the small print taketh away."
 

Online james_s

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9211
  • Country: us
Re: Inhabitating Mars by 2030? What for?
« Reply #94 on: January 20, 2019, 07:43:24 am »
When I think about the moon, I think lonely, dusty, desolate empty rock floating in the dead vacuum of space. If money were no object I could think of a virtually limitless number of places here on earth that I would rather go visit. Places that are far enough away from anyone I'd want to be away from that it wouldn't matter, and every bit as clean and pristine as something on the moon. Places where there is far more to do, far more to see, and far less risk of dying in the process. Go to the moon and you'll be confined to what is essentially a bunker or capsule pressurized with breathable air, you'd have more room to move around in prison.
 
The following users thanked this post: GeorgeOfTheJungle

Offline mrpackethead

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2799
  • Country: nz
  • D Size Cell
Re: Inhabitating Mars by 2030? What for?
« Reply #95 on: January 20, 2019, 09:17:41 am »
How little mass would you have to move from the moon to the earth before you messed up the very delicate balacing act that causes tides.  If tides are messed up, the environmental damage to the ocean and land could be huge.

On a quest to find increasingly complicated ways to blink things
 

Offline Domagoj T

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 278
  • Country: hr
Re: Inhabitating Mars by 2030? What for?
« Reply #96 on: January 20, 2019, 09:56:40 am »
How little mass would you have to move from the moon to the earth before you messed up the very delicate balacing act that causes tides.  If tides are messed up, the environmental damage to the ocean and land could be huge.
Why do you think that the relationship between Moon and Earth that causes tides is "very delicate"?
Mass of the Moon is 7.4 × 10^22 kilograms
Total world iron ore production in 2015 was around 2 x 10^6 kg. There are quite a few orders of magnitude in between. Of course, we're not going to ship iron from Moon, or any other bulk industrial product that even comes close to that. We do produce more coal and cement, but last I've checked, coal is in short supply on the Moon.
What we could find on Moon that there lacks on Earth are various isotopes that are generated by the surface being blasted by direct Sunlight and radiation, but amounts of those are negligible compared to the total mass of the Moon and are not going to change the orbital mechanics.
It will take quite some time for us to develop tech to be capable of altering celestial bodies to that extent.
 

Online tpowell1830

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 745
  • Country: us
Re: Inhabitating Mars by 2030? What for?
« Reply #97 on: January 20, 2019, 10:28:27 am »
How little mass would you have to move from the moon to the earth before you messed up the very delicate balacing act that causes tides.  If tides are messed up, the environmental damage to the ocean and land could be huge.

The moon is moving away from earth about 25mm a year, thanks to the reflectors on the moon, we know this. Taking a few hundred kg of rocks from the moon will not have any effect.

Eventually, the moon will break from earth's orbit and begin it's own orbit around the sun. Probably not in my lifetime though. ;)
PEACE===>T
 

Offline apis

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1668
  • Country: se
  • Hobbyist
Re: Inhabitating Mars by 2030? What for?
« Reply #98 on: January 20, 2019, 11:33:46 am »
That still might not be enough though. We could be talking billions per flight in costs, I don't think a lot of people truly grasp how big a billion is. The Apollo program only carried 3 guys at a time, and the launch vehicles were enormously expensive.

Word is that it costs about $35 million if you pick up the phone an book a flight today.
Quote
Musk is telling reporters that the moon flight would cost about the same as a ticket to ISS. Last flight to ISS cost $35 million.
https://www.inverse.com/article/28424-spacex-moon-mission-ticket-cost-elon-musk

The difficult (and thus expensive) part is getting out of the atmosphere, if that obstacle is removed, e.g. with a launch loop, then getting to LEO could cost less than 10$/kg. But that isn't so easy to do, so for a long time we will probably have to rely on rockets. That is why a moon colony is desirable, since with factories on the moon we could create orbital infrastructure that wouldn't have to be launched into space with rockets, it would already be in orbit. That would let us create things like orbital rings which in turn opens up a whole new world of possibilities. Once you're in LEO you can use momentum transfer to get mass out of earths gravity well, so ideally you wouldn't have to spend any fuel to do that (you just have to bring down as much (or more) mass as you bring up). That would mean the entire solar system (and it's resources) would be accessible.
 

Offline cdev

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5082
  • Country: 00
Re: Inhabitating Mars by 2030? What for?
« Reply #99 on: January 20, 2019, 02:39:52 pm »
The number of wealthy people is growing rapidly.

Some members of this group tend to be very 'status conscious'.

The percentage of wealth spent on taxes is difficult to calculate but I think its safe to say that many of the world's wealthy people likely will see even more income increases in the coming years and likely a great many will have the money to spend on space tourism. especially once the bugs are worked out and it becomes comfortable and fun.


Number of millionaires per country by Credit Suisse

Credit Suisse's "Global Wealth in 2018" measured the number of millionaires in the world. According to the report, the US has 17.3 million millionaires, highest in the world.[25]

Rank    Country    Number of
Millionaires    % of world total
1     United States    17,350,000    41%
2     China    3,480,000    8%
3     Japan    2,809,000    7%
4     United Kingdom    2,433,000    6%
5     Germany    2,183,000    5%
6     France    2,147,000    5%
7     Italy    1,362,000    3%
8     Canada    1,289,000    3%
9     Australia    1,288,000    3%
10     Spain    852,000    2%
11     South Korea    754,000    2%
12      Switzerland    725,000    2%
13     Taiwan    521,000    1%
14     Netherlands    477,000    1%
15     Belgium    424,000    1%

Number of millionaires per country by various sources
Rank    Country    Number of Millionaires    Source
    India    330,000    [26]
    UAE    55,700    [27]
    Finland    50,000    [28]
    Bangladesh    45,000    [29]
    South Africa    43,600    [30]
    Pakistan    19,200    [31]
    Egypt    18,000    [32]
    Nigeria    15,400    [33]
    Bangladesh    10,600    [34]

Number of millionaire households per country by Boston Consulting Group

The following is a list of the countries with the most millionaire households in U.S. dollars worldwide according to the Boston Consulting Group's 2017 study.[35][36]
Rank    Country    Number of
US$ millionaire
households
1     United States    7,085,000
2     China    2,124,000
3     Japan    1,244,000
4     United Kingdom    821,000
5     Canada    485,000
6     Germany    473,000
7      Switzerland    466,000
8     France    439,000
9     Taiwan    370,000
10     Italy    307,000
11     Australia    263,000
12     Belgium    240,000
13     Saudi Arabia    236,000
14     Hong Kong    228,000
15     Netherlands    206,000


Number of millionaires per city

The following is a list of the cities with the most US$ millionaires. [37] [5] [38]
Rank    City    Number of
US$ millionaires
(2018)
1     London    357,200
2     New York City    339,200
3     Tokyo    279,800
4    Hong Kong Hong Kong    250,700
5    Singapore Singapore    239,000
6     San Francisco    220,000
7     Los Angeles    199,300
8     Chicago    150,200
9    Beijing Beijing    149,000
10    Shanghai    145,800
11     Frankfurt [39]    128,300
12     Osaka    117,700
13     Paris    110,900
14     Toronto    109,300
15     Zurich    109,200
16     Seoul    108,100
17     Geneva    104,300
18     Mexico City    86,700
19     Munich    78,900
20    India Mumbai    48,100
21    Istanbul[40]    27,300
22     Johannesburg    18,200
23     Cairo    8,900
24    Cape Town    8,200
25     Lagos    6,800
26     Nairobi    6,800
27    Casablanca    2,300
28     Alexandria    1,800
"What the large print giveth, the small print taketh away."
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf