/sci/ - Science & Math

Planetary Resources, Inc is the only company I've heard of that is in this field right now, and its being bankrolled by numerous billionaires. The fact that the backers are billionaires does not mean it requires those resources, but thats your competition. But it is going to be really expensive.

IMO Planetary Resources is ahead of the curve, and not in a good way. That said, they haven't really *done* anything, so maybe they're just positioning themselves to be the first to really exploit the opportunity once it does become viable.

Option A: Single landing vehicle mines and returns to orbiter, which returns to earth. Multiples of these could be launched, but at a higher cost I suppose.

>>5096034
>>5096029

Well shoot, they look to have a pretty comprehensive plan going so far

>>5096055
Plan. My main criticism was whether it's worth implementing anytime soon.

>>5096064

Well, why not? It has the potential to be immensely profitable/beneficial, even with fairly large start up costs. Are the materials available to the average joe?

>>5096034
i suppose its not viable for commerical spaceflight just yet, but, it's easier than going to the moon.
take for example, this asteroid:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_KY26

>>5096081
It's not about whether it's possible to get the materials at all. It's about whether they can compete with the same industries Earth-side.

I'm all about humanity's future in space, but that doesn't mean we should get ahead of ourselves here.

>>5096089
But staying in one place often has the bad side-effect of causing you to fall behind.

>>5096088
>infantile cartoon

>>5096130
and op isn't? sage for not contributing anything to the topic

>>5096126
I'm not talking about stagnation. I'm talking about focusing our efforts where they will do the most good for our long-term future, right now.

For instance, starting a Martian colony this decade would be foolhardy. But while I'm complaining about how we use resources, the US should cut its military budget in half at least, so there's that.

>>5096130
>two-word reply
And not a very convincing one as an argument at that, but you did your best and it's not your fault that it fell so miserably short.

Op, an infantile cartoon called "Mighty Space Miners" may be relevant. Good show, except the whole part about being being canceled after the second episode.

>>5096141
>>5096136
>>5096130

Hay you guys play nice

>>5096139
(cont)
And on a smaller scale, jumping the gun on asteroid mining and then failing miserably might do more harm than good to our future by discouraging similar efforts when they *do* become viable.

But again, they haven't actually done anything yet, so I can't actually accuse them of wasting our enthusiasm for progress.

>>5096139
I know, and I mean that being content on muddling on at the regular pace set by everyone else can lead to being content to stagnate.

>>5096156
With how rapidly everything is changing lately in tech and industry, I don't see any current danger of that.

Political and economic policy issues, I'm not so sure about our progress.

>>5096165
>political and economic policy issues
Those are the greatest hindrances. I agree that technologically and scientifically we're still going full steam ahead, but the drag from the abovementioned dead weight is starting to show.