/sci/ - Science & Math

The public wants to go the the moon and Mars, not some tiny random space rock.

>>3906792
Don't companies want to make hundreds of billions of dollars,if not trillions of dollars in profits?

http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2011-08/chinese-scientists-hatch-plan-pull-asteroid-orbit-a
round-earth

They do. The United States doesn't really have scientists working outside of military technology fields anymore so you won't hear about it here.

There is a huge cost of entry, and no private corporations have the infrastructure to start with. And it would seriously damage a lot of existing industries here. Nobody will be making money from ripping rare elements from the Earth when you can drop them from space.

But really I don't know why people aren't focused on this right now. It only requires moonshot technology, and we've had an extra forty years on top of that. Maybe they don't want to be involved in something they see as crass? Maybe it does't really fit in with an environmentalist rhetoric, in that pro-industry is considered to be anti-environment by default?

We need a Manhattan Project to get asteroid mining and orbital solar off the ground. Once we have that, we won't have to worry about people making money on it or it saving the environment. Because it just will by virtue of existing.

>Why don't scientist talk about PROFITs of mining asteroids?
Because it is not currently profitable. Wait until we're using more of the minerals that are right under our feet.

>>3906792
whats wrong with making money?

>>3906808
Fucking Chinks lol. This is why they will rule the world soon. Not only can they mine these asteroids for huge profits but they can also use them as a weapon if they need to.

>U.S: We will nuke you China!
>China: We will collide a fucking 26,000m/h ball of heavily compressed rare earth minerals into your country.

>>3906815 orbital solar

Aww, aren't you just adorable!

It won't be profitable. The moment we become capable of mining in space, the supply will become astronomical compared to what our economy has seen on earth. Prices will plummet.

I think there are two problems in the US stopping us from pursuing this.

1. NASA is not a for profit organization, so has no incentive to try.
2. Private space flight is still in its infancy.

>>3906873
Well if we had spett 1 trillion dollars on space,rather than potholes...we be mining shit SOON!

>>3906895
If we would have spent 1 trillion dollars on a bureaucratic institution we would have gotten a '1 trillion dollar mars rover' instead after the executives had siphoned off the real funds.

>>3906808
Most likely, their attempt will result in the asteroid falling down towards earth. Such is the curse of the chinese.

>>3906873

I think there's one main thing stopping ANYONE from actually doing this:

The cost of putting a mining vessel into space is astronomical. Getting it to the asteroid belt and back is also difficult. This isn't a one time cost, either. Certain parts of it can stay in space, but if you want to actually get any of it down to earth you're going to have to send modules in and out of orbit. Also, they will wear out relatively quickly. Also, before you herp derp about how the space shuttles lasted for so long, that's because parts were being replaced CONSTANTLY. Plus, to make this on any sort of scale where the immense difficulty would be justified you'd have to mine immense quantities of minerals which are relatively rare on earth but have a sizable demand. Otherwise you're just going to flood the market with stuff that no one really needs and is just going to sit in a warehouse, forcing you to drive prices WAY down in order to recoup ANY amount of your initial investment, and that's before we even BEGIN to talk about operating costs.

C'mon, guys.

>>3906957
You don't have to go all the way to the asteroid belt. There are plenty of asteroids floating around the inner solar system. Just choose one close to Earth, change it's trajectory so it stays close, then break off and fling pieces of the asteroid into Earth orbit.

BECAUSE MINING ASTEROIDS IS NOT PROFITABLE.

>>3906985

If you think any part of that is easy or economical, you're fucking high. Particularly the "Change its path, bring it to Earth, and break it up" Especially because, well, don't know what you THINK it's like entering Earth's atmosphere at high speeds, but it fucking burns. Also, without the ability to control where these things land, that would be reckless, and quite frankly, impossible to actually collect. The reason we find return modules easily isn't because we can predict exactly where they'll land it's not (we can get a vague idea, but it wouldn't be practical to search the entire probable LZ for any asteroid), it's because they have beacons on them. Further, not all minerals have high thermal stability, so heating things up to thousands of degrees Fahrenheit isn't a good idea. Not to mention the fact that a significant portion of your profits would literally burn up in the process.

>>3907025

I'm not the anon you're responding to, but;


It's no more complicated than getting to the moon. With the exception that it can pay for itself.

You send down packets that are prepared in orbit. Wrap the rarer, more delicate stuff in iron, which is abundant in asteroids, and fling it at the Sahara, or Siberia, or the Yukon. A lot will burn up, sure, but even one asteroid will hold a significant percentage of all the rare elements available to mine on Earth.

And you forget that this is pressing. We are running out of many elements we need to maintain a high tech society. When we have no easily available lithium left on Earth, and recycling won't cut it because we need more units, then asteroids are the only game in town.

>mfw when Starcraft predicts our future

>>3907025
I never said it would be easy, although I do think it could be economical. My point was that you don't have to go out to the asteroid belt when there are plenty around our own planetary orbit. I also wasn't saying you need to bring one to Earth, but change it's trajectory in such a way that it stays within reach. We also wouldn't have to send all or even much of the resources down to Earth. It can be parked in Earth orbit and used for space infrastructure development.

I what I find interesting is that we have an economy dependent on continuous growth to prevent collapse, and here we have an area that has huge potential for self sustained growth but no one seems interested. It's odd that we need growth but are so lacking in ambition.

>>3907082
>refining metals in microgravity
What could possibly go wrong?

>>3907109
Lucky for us we have a nice big moon with enough gravity that can be taken advantage of. Also, not all asteroids are metallic but still contain a large amount of resources (water, carbon, etc.) that can be exploited.

>>3907119
If you're going to the moon anyway, you have to be a complete retard to not just mine the poles.
>small body impact
>sends up dust
>heavier particles attracted to the poles
>repeat for billions of years
>get a shovel, faggot
>????
>profit

>>3907133
People want to mine the moon's poles for water, not heavy elements.

>>3907203
Trillions of titanium

>>3907203
>earth is 2/3rds water
>herp derp let's get it from teh moon

Other than ISRU, mining the moon's water ice is pointless.

>>3907240
You wouldn't need to go to the poles for that.

>>3907250
People also want to use it to produce rocket fuel. It's far easier to launch a rocket from the moon than from Earth.

>>3907269
Why are you bitching about ISRU when I already brought it up?

>>3907285
I wasn't. WTF are you talking about?

>>3907301
Lrn2ISRU

http://isru.msfc.nasa.gov/

What's Ron Paul's position on asteroid mining?

>Why don't scientist talk about PROFITs of mining asteroids?

Because there isnt any profit from mining in space

/thread

>>3907347
And? I was talking about an alternate use for moon water. What does this have to do with ISRU?