/sci/ - Science & Math

it's prohibitively expensive

Republicans
Conservatives
Jews
/sci/

Do you realize how stupidly expensive that would be?

>>2179896
Do you realize how ludicrous profits could be?

Also barrier to entry is prohibitively high at the moment.

because it would be just like in Red Faction. Do you really want that?

>because bullshit excuses and elaborate economic falsehoods

>>2179905
Uh, the profits are only 'ludicrous' if people are willing to pay those ludicrous fees in the first place.

You're asking people to pay 1000000x more for 'space-copper' as opposed to 'earth-copper' like they're actually going to buy it.

Give the private sector 20 years.

>>2179912
Yes, because solving problems in a more complicated and expensive manner is always better.

>>2179915

>implying anyone will go to the asteroids to get "hurr durr space copper"

Amun 3554
100 million tonnes of Rare Earths and worth 20 trillion.
That's it.

>>2179905
It would NOT be profitable though.

ANY material would could mine off a meteor we could either get on earth or find a replacement for that's on earth.

Tell me, anonymous, what SPECIFIC material do you think is worth the absurdly expensive and difficult task of launching a shuttle, landing on a meteor (this is by far the hardest part), performing a mining operation in space (also extremely complex and difficult), safely departing, and landing again on earth?

>>2179935

Hydrogen

>>2179935
>Tell me, anonymous, what SPECIFIC material do you think is worth the absurdly expensive and difficult task of launching a shuttle, landing on a meteor (this is by far the hardest part), performing a mining operation in space (also extremely complex and difficult), safely departing, and landing again on earth?
All of them.

>>2179954
>implying there isn't already a shitton of hydrogen on earth

>>2179928
Because getting 100 million tonnes of material from an asteroid to here (let alone getting the mining equipment there) would totally be feasible and cost-effective. The fuel costs alone would make certain that this material couldn't possibly compete economically with terrestrially mined substances.

There's no company on Earth with near enough monetary power to put together a project of this magnitude without going into massive amounts of debt.

>>2179961
>implying you don't understand how fucking expensive it is to haul material out of a gravity well
>implying how 'valuable' your input is

>>2179965

... You go to the asteroid, tie a magnetic sail to it, and sit on the surface with some beers and observe as the asteroid's orbital momentum is killed with utmost precision, sending the 2.5 kilometer-wide rock into a beautiful arc until it runs right into the Earth, at close approach, you turn the sail or otherwise get rid of it and move on to common clusters of ion thrusters, setting the asteroid into a high orbit 0.77 Lunar Distances away from the Earth: Close enough to reach, far away enough for people to calm the fuck down.

Space mining will be a legitimate endeavor in maybe 50 years. As of right now it's just easier to mine whatever is on Earth. As our needs expand in the years to come and space travel in the Earth sphere becomes more common we'll obviously see the asteroids being mined, there's just so much stuff out there it has to happen eventually.

>>2179975
>.77 lunar distance
You'll just make some rednecks worry that the asteroid will pull moon down to earth.

isnt getting stuff from space->earth in one piece really hard?

>>2179975
While I don't doubt that being quite possible, I do see it causing plenty of havoc. What happens if one of these space mining companies fuck up and accidentally send one of these 100million tonne rocks hurtling right for us? It doesn't seem too safe to be redirecting asteroids towards the planet Earth... What if it fucks with the orbit of the moon, or otherwise rapes the tides?

>>2180018
what happens if some dickhead company on earth accidentally loses control of a nuclear reactor, oh, right...

There's risks in everything.
Couch potato.

Rocket fuel is incredibly expensive per lb of cargo.

As soon as we can find better propulsion we will be mining the Moon easy.

>>2180054
We already have cheaper fuel, people are just afraid to power rockets with nuclear explosions

>>2180069

Nuclear propulsion is okay in my book but in my opinion won't go anywhere for a while.

>>2180054
Time for PROJECT ORION NUCLEAR PULSE PROPULSION BABBY!

Because we aren't using all our rocks here.

HURDURRRR

>>2180054

Nuclear powered rockets.

>>2179905
God DAMN the underageb& is stifling.
We'll do it when it's profitable. Not before.

Moon is a great 2009 film about a man mining helium 3 on the Moon. Great mystery.

I'm saying lunar mining will be around by 2025. Some wacky conspiracy theorists will claim China is already doing it...

>>2180093
Couch potato.

>>2180131
Is this the new trolling? No one is advocating doing nothing. But when you ask me if I should open a new mine in Colorado or on a fucking asteroid, I know which one has a better ROI.

Once we're actively using all of the easily available rare earth metals, then it will be worth looking for more sources. As for common metals - we won't run out for a while.

>>2179935
While we can get pretty much any mineral we want from earth, the fact is they are much more available on asteroids. Do you know where much of the metals in Earth's crust came from? Asteroid impacts of course. Most of Earth's metals sank to the center of earth when earth formed, so many metals in the crust came from asteroid impacts.

What material? Precious metals of course. Asteroids are estimated to have so much precious metal, that mining them could destabilize the market for them.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/sci/tech/401227.stm

As far as safety goes, you'd do it with robots. As far as reentering dangers go, if you mine gold, you only have to reenter 1.2 space shuttle masses a year to equal annual gold production. The columbia disaster only killed the people who were onboard, so risks of killing people by reentering mined products should be minimal.

Also it cost around $5000 to launch a kilogram into orbit(spacex) and around $44000 for a kilogram of gold

>>2180137
That's absurd.
the calculation for return on investment and, therefore the definition, can be modified to suit the situation -it all depends on what you include as returns and costs. The definition of the term in the broadest sense just attempts to measure the profitability of an investment and, as such, there is no one "right" calculation.
Your mountain in colorado has no doubt been massively surveyed for example...of course you would have an excellent idea of ROI

as for the second part, you say 'we' like the whole world shares evenly. Have you looked outside recently?

and of course we won't run out of common metals anytime soon....fucktards like you won't let reasonable folks build the god damn spacecraft we need

>>2180225
>the calculation for return on investment and, therefore the definition, can be modified to suit the situation -it all depends on what you include as returns and costs. The definition of the term in the broadest sense just attempts to measure the profitability of an investment and, as such, there is no one "right" calculation.
The burden is on you to devise some back-asswards form of ROI that doesn't make asteroid mining look like idiocy this decade. Go ahead.

>as for the second part, you say 'we' like the whole world shares evenly. Have you looked outside recently?
Are you implying that trade barriers are so high that going to an ASTEROID is preferable?

>and of course we won't run out of common metals anytime soon....fucktards like you won't let reasonable folks build the god damn spacecraft we need
Again, I'm not anti-industry. Quite the opposite. But let's spend our efforts on what is most effective, OK?

I think we can be mining asteroids (and have a sufficient reason to do so) this century. Just not this decade, or next. It's much, much better to buy rare earths from China than to mine asteroids. Have you even tried a back-of-the-envelope calculation to see how much your space-metal would cost at market?

>>2180218
>Also it cost around $5000 to launch a kilogram into orbit(spacex) and around $44000 for a kilogram of gold
You're starting to crunch numbers. Good.
But gold is a very bad choice for comparison, almost disengenuous. The price of gold is artificially high. Same with diamonds. A few behind-the-scenes string-pulls, and your space-gold is pushed out of the market.

Now, rare earths like Neodymium, however...

Fun fact: We could mine for rare earths in North America. We didn't run out - but a combination of cheap Chinese labor and environmental regulation overhead made North American mines too expensive by comparison.

If THOSE mines got crowded out of the market, how do you think mining an asteroid would fare anytime in the near future? You'd have to make it really, really cheap (good luck) or wait until rare earths get really, really expensive (once we are actively using all we can get our hands on easily).

>>2179893
>Jews
>implying jews wouldn't mine asteroids if there was money in it
which also answers OP's question ...

Mining asteroids would bring the scarcity of many metals and minerals down.

Whether or not the asteroid miners would make a killing is a question for economists.

>>2180280
>>Now, rare earths like Neodymium, however...
Aren't segregated on asteroids as far as we know. We don't really have surface samples so we have no ideas if asteroids contain significant quantities of segregated rare earths, but the chances are slim.

The Moon, however, is a different story large areas of the Moon are classified as KREEP, or Potassium Rare Earth Element Phosphorous. Meaning that rare earths have been segregated on the Moon and might be extractable.

Neodymium also costs $92 per kilogram, significantly less than gold. The price for rare earths is artificially high too, China has done a lot in price manipulation to make sure rare earth's are expensive.

>>2180270

well you got me there...i'm no specialist on such manners and you must obviously have some knack for it.

I will however note that even moderate failures in the flight of an asteroid mining mission could halt the operation and result in no return on investment. It's true.
Terrestrial ventures could suffer even several catastrophic failures (such as the collapse of a mine shaft killing and possibly trapping the crew) that can ALSO halt the operation and result in no return on investment.
let's send some proper surveying stuff out that a way first so you can actually see what you're passing up eh?

no as such no...more like it's probably easier taking a 3G launch, spend 9 months in peace and quiet, and then come back with the gross national product of some off in the wall country appeals to me is all...
I'm not the only one.

to be blunt, it ain't about the metal...or the dollars

it's having the sense of mind to get our species off this blighted mud ball WHILE we have the tech AND a horde of crazy motherfuckers WILLING to beat a path just for the opportunity to try it.

we need to get more experience out there and it will take many lives and tons of assets, but i fail to see how it can not be of any benefit currently.

you don't get ANY returns at all if you refuse to try and insist on clinging to mother's hem and wailing about lost pennies.

>>2180357
>it's having the sense of mind to get our species off this blighted mud ball WHILE we have the tech AND a horde of crazy motherfuckers WILLING to beat a path just for the opportunity to try it.
And now we reach the heart of the problem.

You are pessimistic. Almost fatalistic.

it's true!

i wanna win the lottery.

>mfw i don't play the lottery

>>2180343
Still, China is no DeBeers (damn diamond-mongers). They don't have a monopoly - they just have most of the CURRENTLY open mines, since they pushed everyone else out by going cheap. But if they made it too expensive, we'd open our own mines.

Bringing back a million tons of gold would be funny, but not likely profitable. And when the artificial price of gold collapses, you're the one left holding the bag.

>>2180368
Let me tone down my statement - don't worry, we'll get there. We'll still have tech and crazy ambitious mofos for a long time to come.

>>2180368

so? what's wrong with that?

are you implying nothing good has ever come from such a frame of mind?

>>2180406
Fewer good things. It tends to discourage action.

>>2180383
Well you see, there are advantages to doing mining in space. There is no environment in space, therefore there are no environmental regulations in space, so space mining and extraction are inherently green processes(yes even reentry). Plus, one has the ability to tout the novelty of SPACE GOLD! GOLD FROM OUTERSPACE!

>>And when the artificial price of gold collapses, you're the one left holding the bag.
or you can pull a china and run everyone else out of business...

>>2180426
well yes.

that is the overall goal eventually.
Stagnation then collapses and hopefully extinction as we squabble over the scraps.
it's just easier if everyone is excited to go is all.

i'm not totally heartless.

>>2180442
Glad someone is thinking rationally. I just don't think this is going to happen in the next thirty years. Maybe in the next fifty. Probably in the next hundred.

Assuming we get past the energy crisis. If that doesn't pan out, any involving escaping Earth's gravity will be expensive for a while.

>>2180456
hahaha?

You don't have to be miserable, you know.

>>2180462
yes.

i acknowledge it is an active choice.
i am indeed married.

>>2180457
>>escaping earth's gravity $EXPENSIVE$
this is why you use insitu resources for much of your equipment. Make the equipment with resources on the asteroid instead of shipping it all from Earth.

>>2180572
It's not operational costs that bother me. It's startup costs that you can't recoup in the lifetime of your equipment (for now).

So you send a huge expedition to mine an asteroid and bring it back. Can you make money, net? The answer: not right now.

Alright, here's how I would go about mining an asteroid.

1. Build a space dock that orbits the Earth, basically just a point in space to shoot stuff to.

2. Build a moon based mining facility.

3. Build a space ship that would stay in space, with a nuclear powered drive. It would have to be capable towing some serious space rocks.

4. Tow the rock back to Earth, and GENTLY land it on the moon.

5. Mine the shit out of said space rock. Shoot unusable material safely into space, so the moons mass doesn't change dramatically.

6. Load the ore into a shuttle that would fly to the space port, drop off it's cargo, refuel, and return to the moon.

7. Toss the ore into a capsule that is capable of reentering the atmosphere.

8. Recover ore, shoot the capsule back to the space dock.

9. ?????????

10. Profit

Once the initial facilities are put into place an entire industry would be in place for future mining.

>>2180597
what?

a footnote in the annals saying you were the first nut-job to pull it off isn't enough for you?

>>2180700
>Shoot unusable material safely into space, so the moons mass doesn't change dramatically.
I think you have vastly underestimated the mass of the moon. Or you just plan on bringing most of the asteroid belt back. (Protip: Ain't gonna happen for centuries)

>>2180724
You have a trillion dollars to lend me?

Even then, being the first colossal failure at something that later becomes wildly successful isn't my goal.

>>2180725

Whatever, better safe than sorry I guess.

>implying we wouldn't be constructing hundreds of space colonies with asteroids we drag into earth's orbit

>>2180732
What's the problem with the moon gaining a little mass? Lifting the spacejunk out of the moon's gravity well costs money.

>>2180737

F = G(m1*m2/r^2)

>>2180730
you're not playing nice at all

you can't shoot the horse until AFTER the race man!

>>2180750
Shunting junk into orbit isn't worth the small decrease in later launch costs of stuff that does matter.

>>2180751
Nice pic.
Sorry to spoil your party. Maybe in thirty years.

>>2180762

What? Removing the mass is important, mostly because we don't want to fuck with the gravitational balance between the Earth and Moon. It's like deciding to filter all emissions before they add up in the atmosphere and become a problem later.

>>2180779
OK, I've entertained this shit long enough.

You need to go look up the mass of the moon, and then the mass of some asteroids, and compare them.

>>2179928

Pray Anon, tell me how much that will ACTUALLY fetch you when you dump more rare earth on the world market than the GDP of the United States.

I did it for you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid#Size_distribution
>The mass of all the objects of the Main asteroid belt, lying between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter, is estimated to be about 3.0-3.6 × 1021 kg, or about 4 percent of the mass of the Moon.

That's if you take ALL the asteroids, and dump ALL of them on the moon, with NOTHING removed. (ain't gonna happen).

Don't worry about it.

>>2180787

I understand that, but if we end up mining on the moon for centuries without controlling the "waste", don't you think it could end up really adding up? You're probably right though, if there was a problem later on it would be real easy to solve. That step can be ignored then, other than that it seems like a pretty legit plan right?

What is so valuable out there that we should go out and get it?

>>2180814
>other than that it seems like a pretty legit plan right?
Yeah, I like it.

>>2180815
Stuff we still have enough of here. Nothing to see, move along.

>>2180815

Any of the rare earth metals, Scandium, Yttrium, Lanthanum, Cerium, etc. Mostly stuff that isn't widely available here. While we're on the Moon we could probably harvest some H3, I think I read somewhere that it's much more available there, though it may have just been from the movie Moon.

>>2180815
um....everything else that isn't on the earth maybe?

you are aware that there's a LOT of stuff up there to be had, yes?

or implying a LOT of room to send away undesirable ...um... stuff then?

How feasable is it to crash the asteroid onto the moon and then mine it?

>>2180836
I could be wrong, but I dont think any of that is worth a million dollars an ounce.

>>2180840

I figure it would be easier than mining it in space, though figuring out how to land it without knocking the moon off its orbit may be a pain.

because aliens invading ships

>>2180848

*looks at moon's gazillion craters*

I don't think that would happen....

>>2180845

It's all about instant gratification isn't it? Alright, consider this then.

We would be getting more rare metals, that's nice and all, but we would also be actively researching how to efficiently move through and live in space. If we could get an industry started and have private companies competing to do the mining most efficiently, the technological advancement would come naturally. I realize it's definitely a risky venture, but I'd imagine it could really pay out in the long run.

why do we spend money just to go into space
i mean, its not like there's more petrol in space, it costs billions of our hard-earned tax dollars, and and its not even useful

>>2180891

0/10

>>2180866
So lets say this happens, and we figure out how to live in space. What then? We just hang out up there?

In that case why dont we try to live on the ocean floor? Or in the center of the earth? Im sure there is cool stuff in both of those places. What makes space so special?

>>2180910

It's special because it's not Earth, and it's 99.9999999...% of everything else. What if we don't go to space, what if we decide to just stay here. Either we get wiped out by a plague, kill ourselves off, or hit by a fucking asteroid. We are literally keeping all our eggs in one basket. Also, don't you like Star Trek? inb4 "hurr durr who cares if we all die".

>>2180901


>implying that what he said wasnt absolutely, 100% true...


>implying that ALL of NASA's projects have any goal beyond philisophical inquiry


>not realizing that the absolute ONLY useful space based industry is 100% satellite.
telescopes in space, space stations, extraterrestrial probes...


none of them will ever help anyone on planet earth.

ever.

never.

ever.


do you care about how the microwave background radiation evolved from the early few moments after the big bang?

do you care about finding moar extrasolar earth like plents?

do you care about the composition of the atmosphere of saturn's moons?
guess what.... none of that will ever affect anyone on earth.

ever.
neither will anything that has been associated with the LHC.
honestly, the only useful thing to come out of QCD and relativistic QFT...


better approximations of C, q (coulomb charge), etc.
nothing else.


no better semiconductors, no better math, no better biochemistry, no better chemistry, nothing.


nothing that will ever help in any way shape or form.

> mine asteroids
haha oh wow

>>2180937
Seems like a big waste of money. We should probably wait until our technology is better.

>>2180960

Yea, probably. I'm not saying do it now, but it should be done within our lifetimes.

>>2180836

since the moon is made of pretty much the same stuff as our planet...


yet has absolutely no vulcanism whatsoever...


it is incredibly unlikely that there is:

1) more of anything useful

2) more of it near the surface
the only reason why people ASSUME that there is more 3H is because the Moon is not SHIELDED by a magnetosphere, like the earth is...

3H is part of the composition of the stream of charged particles emanating from the sun at all times


our magnetosphere blocks 99% of that stuff, but the moon doesnt have one...

thus that shit blasts onto its surface all the time.
regardless, we will have sustainable fusion (best Tokomak is at 66% energy output vs energy input as of 2006) LONG before it is cost effective to go to the moon for ANY REASON.


source on the Tokomak number is from a Discover article I read...

it was not the most recent issue, but the prior one.


they had a whole article on fusion.


When I read it I did a "wat" because I had no idea Tokomaks were that efficient..

>>2180910
There are increased scientific and economic opportunities, such as research of the lunar regolith or rapid trans-continental flight. Space programs also have side uses such as foreign relations, military purposes, and incentives for science education and research.
It's also rather inspiring; the thought of building craft that allow humans to brave the harsh elements of the Cosmos and thrive within it.

>>2180971
Just to correct a minor point, the lunar surface is known to contain He-3 from the samples of the lunar surface brought back from the Apollo missions. It is actually rather concentrated in the regolith, albeit for a rare isotope.

The economics aren't quite there. If there were solid gold asteroids it still wouldn't pay to go get them.

> control scarce resources, become rich
> mine asteroids to make scarce resources plentiful
> profit?

>>2180944
Well I was trolling, but I wouldn't troll with that statement if it wasn't at least somewhat legitimate.
Reason I don't back behind that statement is because a lot of advances in science and engineering have come about by meeting the goals of exploring space, but the goal itself is rather frivolous. I personally am looking to work towards the goal of exploring space and other extraterrestrial affairs simply because I find it to be quite enthralling to be able to meet those goals, and to inspire thought in others. By no mans would I ever try to convince those who hold the opinion of my troll though, for they have completely legitimate points.

>>2180944
Well I was trolling, but I wouldn't troll with that statement if it wasn't at least somewhat legitimate.
Reason I don't back behind that statement is because a lot of advances in science and engineering have come about by meeting the goals of exploring space, but the goal itself is rather frivolous. I personally am looking to work towards the goal of exploring space and other extraterrestrial affairs simply because I find it to be quite enthralling to be able to meet those goals, and to inspire thought in others. By no mans would I ever try to convince those who hold the opinion of my troll though, for they have legitimate points.

>>2180986


all of the research incentives, the stuff where people say:

"we have XXXX because of the space program"


are equally applicable to ABSOLUTELY ANY OTHER endeavor, including normal private/academic research.

some people like to imply that because it is the "space program"

that this fact somehow must make scientists and engineers work harder.


without that assumption, there is absolutely NO BASIS for the assumption that a massive endeavor like the space program produces anything faster/better/more effectively than NORMAL research.


if anything true can be said about the space program it is this:


that massive, government sponsored, focused research efforts pay off in their ultimate goal.


thats it. nothing else can be said.
and the other bit, about transcontinental flights is pure and utter bullshit with no basis whatsoever.


you seriously have to a major fucktard to think that "higher flight = faster/better/more efficient"


if that were the case, then commercial jets would be DESIGNED to fly at EVEN HIGHER altitudes than they currently do (like 50,000 feet instead of 35,000).


no. there is an OPTIMUM altitude, and that is the altitude at which they fly.
the only reason why an extremely small number of commercial companies are creating low-orbit air/spacecraft is for:

SPACE TOURISM.


not for getting people around the planet faster.


scramjets and ramjets HAVE to function INSIDE the atmosphere...


so all that old bullshit from the 1990s about "futuristic" concept aircraft HAS NOTHING TO DO with "higher = better"

Gold, Neodymium?


you niggers, apparently, dont know shit from "shine-o-la"
the materials that really matter are:

indium
rhodium
rhenium
platinum
palladium
hafnium


industrial catalysts or EXTREMELY important electronics.


one of the reason why ICs (integrated circuits) have increased in cost soooo much (which is a FACT)...


Hafnium. Hafnium oxide is used as a High-K dielectric.


it is THE SINGLE most important material in current advanced semiconductors.


it is the reason we have SUB 45-nm processes like those used in modern Intel chips...


it is absolutely essential. ALL intel and AMD chips are made with Hafnium oxide (intel, amd, nvidia, and ATI).


it is extremely rare. in fact, some people believe that we have "used it all up" in the sense that ALL known deposits are THE ONLY deposits.


Rhenium is incredibly important for aerospace and energy generation.


it is fundamental for "rhenalloys" which are Superalloys that have extremely high resistance to Hysterisis.


they are used to make super high performance turbine blades (for POWER PLANTS as well, not just jet engines).


in fact, Rolls Royce, Pratt and Whitney, and GE all had to COMPLETELY HALT production of turbines for 6 months while they "went back to the drawing board" with their metallurgy.

they had to replace it because it is so rare.


Indium is mostly important in Consumer Electronics (ITO--> InSnO ---> indium tin oxide---> transparent anode/cathode material for thin film transistors, LCD screens, OLED screens, etc.)
Indium costs are the reason why Graphene research is sooo important...


if you can replace indium with epitaxial graphite (which means a few atom thick layer of graphene/graphite)...

then you can replace an incredibly expensive metal with an incredibly cheap material like carbon

>>2181025
Um, ok? Why do you put really obnoxious spaces in between your sentences? It doesn't make it easier to read.
I didn't mean scientists and engineers work harder because of the supposed grandeur of a space program, but that it supplies job opportunities. Often though, the thought of working in the space program is enough to influence students to acquire a relevant degree for what they want to do in it.
I included rapid transcontinental flights because it's entirely possible for a commercial or military use. I didn't want to say space tourism because it's a huge waste of money. And don't assume that all we're ever going to use are airplanes that (no shit) only work in air; there are also spaceplanes in R&D, more notably SpaceShipTwo by virgin galactic, which could perform the flights but unfortunately will be used for space tourism.
I know we're on the internet, but it may be helpful to your argument to not assume implications and rant from there.

>>2181070


I should add that:

Rh, Pd, and Pt are heavily associated with the most recent Chemistry Nobel Prize winners.

Stille, Negishi, and Suzuki couplings are amongst the greatest achievements in synthetic chemistry.


in fact...


all of the stuff you hear about OLEDs, Plastic solar cells, Flexible displays, Printable circuits, etc...


all of that stuff is completely IMPOSSIBLE without Palladium (or rhodium) catalyzed "coupling reactions"


the Suzuki, Negishi, Stille, Heck, Fukuyama, etc. coupling reactions allow carbon-carbon bond formation.


specifically they allow formation of Carbon-Carbon bonds in:

UNSATURATED (alkenes, alkynes, and aromatic groups) molecules.


these molecules are the fundamental unit that composes ALL "organic semiconductors"

>>2181071
inb4 "nasa doesn't offer a lot of jobs compared to all the other companies"
Wasn't implying otherwise.

>>2181071

>I didn't want to say space tourism because it's a huge waste of money.

>also spaceplanes in R&D, more notably SpaceShipTwo by virgin galactic
but also, remember son... the Virgin Galactic aircraft use exensive, inefficient, rocket engines to propell themselves into space.


they do not have powered "flight" in space, but rather hit an apex AFTER stopping the rockets, then fall back to earth in a free fall descent.


they cannot achieve any form of even medium/moderate distance transit.


what you have eluded to:

usage of space as a medium for faster/more efficient/better transportation of materials/people...

has absolutely no realistic commercial or scientific basis whatsoever.


if your goal is to move stuff from point A to point B, space is NOT good way to go:

1) no air for jets

2) if you use rockets you have to lug all that chemical fuel UP INTO SPACE, and then use that chemical fuel...

3) once you get near point B (while still in space), you have to descend back to earth and land.


there is no commercial or scientific appeal in this process.

no current THEORETICAL design even makes it worthwhile (or, realistically even possible).


no amount of money will change this.

>>2181099


the only really specific thing that the space program gave us?

the only thing that we "wouldnt" have gotten as quickly without it?


satellite communications.


Thats it. nothing else. Eventually we would have developed Satellite communications...

however, the space race "accelerated" our interests in creating a large non-ground based communications network...

basically the space race was associated with develoment of ICBMs

everything that NASA and the USSR did was all tied into ICBMs

it was all a public face for spending boat-loads of money trying to figure out guidance, electronics, engineering, materials, etc for building better weapons.
my point is that we got satellites "early" because of the space program

the need would have become apparent even without the weapons association.


imagine what we would have now, "instead" had we never invested soo much national time and money into the space program...


a cure for cancer? we are maybe 10-15 years off as it stands today (A cure, NOT A PREVENTATIVE MEASURE).

it is possible.

>>2181114
That's not my goal. It's a possibility that it might be a goal for others. You went on another rant again, and I feel like I'm being trolled hard, but:
>1) no air for jets
I'm actually a rather intelligent individual and came to this conclusion myself, hence why I said nothing of jets. You're such a disrespectful person.
>2) if you use rockets you have to lug all that chemical fuel UP INTO SPACE, and then use that chemical fuel...
Spaceplanes generally fly up to a certain alitude and then use their chemical fuel to blast their periapsis out of the atmosphere. Doesn't take too terribly much to do it; not like it's trying to lift a whole shuttle.
>3) once you get near point B (while still in space), you have to descend back to earth and land.
Either you think I'm really fucking stupid or you really don't know how to solve this problem. Assuming the later, you descend back into the atmosphere a little before your destination so that you slow down and can approach your target. Jet engines can then be used, since you're so intent on including jet engines.

>>2181145
That's not even what my post was about you faggot. Stop trolling

>>2181145
That's not what my post said. But fine.

>>2179886
how do you purpose we land on this asteroid that is going millions of miles per hour without crashing and dying
also how do you purpose we get the ore off the asteroid?
in order for it to be enough bang for your buck we would probably need to mine it dry opening up the problem
how the hell do we get the non exsistent equipment to mine the ore on the asteroid as well
truth be told you are either an idiot or a troll

>>2181070
you forgot unobtanium

with a carbon nanotube space elevator (its a serious proposition look it up) that would ferry equipment beyond the atmosphere space related industry like mining will become a feasible possibility. we are a while off being able to produce nanotubes of enough length, but this will be the first step towards mining the moon or asteroids.

>>2181222

>how do you purpose we land on this asteroid that is >going millions of miles per hour without crashing and >dying?

Get up to the same speed as it? Velocity is relative. If we're going, say, 1 million miles per hour, and the asteroid is going 1 million miles per hour in the same direction, it would appear to be immobile to us. This is high-school level physics, you should already know this.

>also how do you purpose we get the ore off the >asteroid?

>in order for it to be enough bang for your buck we >would probably need to mine it dry opening up the >problem

>how the hell do we get the non exsistent equipment >to mine the ore on the asteroid as well

We can do all of these with currently existing technology, it would just take a lot of creativity and hard work for engineers and scientists to make the equipment necessary to do all this. Some robots we have created are capable of constructing copies of themselves, and although such things are in their infancy, that tech can easily be adapted to create self-replicating mining drones

>truth be told you are either an idiot or a troll

Just because it is hard to do and hasn't been done yet doesn't mean it can't be done. You just jelly some people can dream bigger than you.

>Get up to the same speed as it? Velocity is relative. If we're going, say, 1 million miles per hour, and the asteroid is going 1 million miles per hour in the same direction, it would appear to be immobile to us. This is high-school level physics, you should already know this.
>implying all asteroids in the field will be static relative to our position
even sand-sized meteors in lack of atmosphere could be fatal, bro

>>2181988
It was my impression that the asteroid belt was a collection of co-moving objects - not too large a spread in velocities. It's had billions of years to calm down through collisions, anyway.

Anyway, this thread tl;dr:
Mining asteroids will eventually be helpful in many ways, but not it's not the best way to spend our efforts right now. Maybe in our lifetimes, or this century, but not now.

>>2181988
It's not a problem.

The fact that you think it's a problem shows how little you know about space.