The problem with articles like this is that they merely show us that the writer (in this case @Paul Krugman) has *finally* recognized the challenges of off-Earth settlement that we have known precisely & been working to solve for decades... 1/2 https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/07/opinion/musk-mars-twitter.html…

2/…and it presents it to us as if it is a big gotcha that only he could have known (as if we don’t read the economics literature, too), and it doesn’t assess the actual progress in overcoming this challenge so it implies there is nobody working on it & no way to address it. smh

To be clear, I don’t think anybody including @Elon Musk’s team believes we can send 1M ppl to Mars *today.* We know we have to develop tech that will make a small-population Mars community viable. Achieving 1M-viability is a target. I think it is easily doable.

Some of the concepts in play: (1) Reduce width of the supply chain by using more commonality of parts. E.g., do we need 1,000 different types of bolts, each with their own factory equipment to make them? No. Maybe we can divide the supply chain width by 30.

(2) Entire segments of the economy can be eliminated. E.g., Mars will not have a wood furniture industry (no trees). Mars domed-city dwellers will not need cars or airlines. Etc. The new economy can be vastly more efficient & sustainable than what we have on Earth.

(3) Automation tech is advancing at super speed. Right now in the West we leverage labor about 1500:1. Globally it is 300:1. Advancing tech will soon make it 10,000:1. Then 100k:1. The supply chain needs ever-less human labor to be sustainable.

(4) Nobody ever said Mars will not trade with Earth. @Paul Krugman was making a straw man argument there, or was unaware of the literature & developments on this topic. We think the cost of Mars transport will plummet by a factor of 1000s in a few decades. In fact…

…I was supposed to give a talk today at the Space Resources Roundtable today on this topic, but untimely COVID kept me home. I will share the prerecorded video of my talk if I am permitted. In the talk, I discuss how economies of scope will drive the cost of space transport…

…to ridiculously low prices within about 30 years. I used the economics literature rooted in data to show this. If anybody wants to claim it will *not* happen, they would be claiming a miracle will occur, because it goes against everything we know about economics and experience.

So of course Mars will continue importing from Earth. Mars will easily export—especially in the services sector since services are massless and can be “shipped” by radio wave. Examples: software, engineering, biotech inventions (licensing, or work for terrestrial biotech firms).

(5) There is no need to wait until all the tech is developed before starting. A smaller population can be supported by trade with Earth as it bootstraps its local industry toward greater self-sufficiency. Till then, you don’t make the population larger than trade will support.

The essence of my modeling effort was to see how expensive it will be to support the Mars population during that interim, when they rely on imports from Earth but they don’t produce exports to pay for it, yet. I was *surprised* to find that it is easily affordable.

A key is to build 1st those segments of the economy that produce the most mass, thus minimizing the mass imported from Earth (and the transportation cost). & keep the Mars population no larger than needed to operate those segments of the Mars economy that have begun functioning.

So each import cycle brings what is needed to keep Mars settlers happy and healthy plus as much as you can afford in parts & materials to build the capital for the next economic segment that you plan to make functional.

As time goes on, Mars is making an ever larger fraction of the mass of capital for its own economy and importing ever smaller fractions. Along the way, you also begin standing-up the services sector to begin making exports back to Earth for revenue to offset import costs.

I based the modeling entirely on economic data of the US economy so it would be realistic. Modifications have to be made for, e.g., much higher cost of agriculture under a dome, plus the other changes enumerated above in this thread.