[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 127 KB, 1024x768, asteroid.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3018782 No.3018782 [Reply] [Original]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%286178%29_1986_DA

>(6178) 1986 DA is a 2.3-kilometre-diameter M-type Mars-crosser and near-Earth asteroid,
>(...)
>scientists revealed that it contained over "10,000 tons of gold and 100,000 tons of platinum", or an approximate value at the time of its discovery of "$90 billion for the gold
>and a cool trillion dollars for the platinum, plus loose change for the asteroid's 10 billion tons of iron and a billion tons of nickel.

OMG why haven't we brought this down yet? Imagine how big statue you could make with much gold.

>> No.3018786

That would like double the gold supply on earth.

For gold mining companies and Glenn Beck, that's a bad thing.

>> No.3018796

>brought this down
because you're still dead even if the grand piano that falls on your head is made of gold and platinum

And the reason we haven't started mining it in space is that people and governments generally have a low ability to plan ahead more than a year or two.

>> No.3018813

>>3018782
Iam pretty selling those materials would even out mining it out.

>> No.3018821

>>3018813
You think the mining operation would cost more than a trillion dollars?

>> No.3018824

I wish i get hit by this motherfucker

>> No.3018834

>>3018821
You think suddenly multiplying the amount of gold or platinum available wouldn't negatively impact its value?

>> No.3018840

>>3018834

You mean we'd actually get to use platinum for scientific purposes? Sounds good, when do we start?

>> No.3018845

>begin interstellar mining operations while the economy is still based upon scarcity
>act surprised during a subsequent economic collapse

>> No.3018857

>>3018845

>realize our economy is screwed up

>restructure it better

>oh wait economy does not work like scientific theory

>you will never live in a world where economy is like scientific theory

>> No.3018892

Why don't we back up all our dollars with platinum then?

>> No.3018900

If there was suddenly more gold, that wouldnt be a bad thing.

Our current circumstance < Our currency circumstance + Gold

The price would go down, I think that might be different from value, because you arent changing anything about how gold is used.

>> No.3018905

>>3018857
Aww, that means no econocreationists handing out Intelligent Dollars at schools.

>> No.3018906

>$90 billion for the gold
>double the gold on earth

This makes no fucking sense, there is more than a 90 billion dollars, theres what 50-100 trillion?

The fuck is backing all this money, and if not gold then it doesnt fucking matter if we bring down more.

>> No.3018926

>>3018834
wait.

Are you suggesting the value of things are based on the supply..and..demand?

>> No.3018927

>>3018906
Turtles.

>> No.3018928

>>3018905

"intelligent dollars"

Made me laugh.

>>3018906

I dont think it would negatively impact us even if our dollar was backed by Gold.

Even when the dollar was back by Gold the supply of Gold still grew from mining operations.

>> No.3018932

>>3018857
well, technically you do. It's just that like every good pseudoscience, the rough edges need to be smeared over with vague notions.

>> No.3018933

>>3018928

Thats me.

>> No.3018937
File: 84 KB, 858x916, SmokingBastard.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3018937

>mfw I realize this means mineral companies are going to be the biggest defenders and opponents of asteroid mining

>> No.3018967

>>3018937

Why?

Why wouldnt they become the greatest investors because of the competitive advantage it brings to them? I just see that as natural since they probably are the ones with the understanding of mineral resources, and could plausibly mine asteroids better than other organizations.

>> No.3018968

We are going to eventually have to start mining asteroids, shit isnt going to last forever on earth.

I only hope we find a taco asteroid.

>> No.3018983

It's not like the asteroid could be brought down all at once. It would have to mined, and those billions of tons would have to be transported. The supply of the metals it contains would go up, but the rate would be severely limited by mining and transit time. Perhaps less so if it was used to provide resources for the construction of orbital stations, colonies, or the like.

I don't suppose any of those neat private space companies are planning to get into asteroid mining anytime soon?

>> No.3018984

>>3018967
>spend trillions to pull trillions worth of gold and platinum off an asteroid
>can't sell gold/platinum for trillions

>> No.3018992

>>3018967

I said defenders AND opponents. I.E. They'll fill in both sides of the battle lines. Same reason why paper-producing companies brought the smack down on cannabis crops, instead of investing in them like all hell.

>> No.3019007

>>3018983
>I don't suppose any of those neat private space companies are planning to get into asteroid mining anytime soon?

I would imagine that is actually the primary goal, seeing as it's the most profitable route in the end. It'll take a bit, but I'm sure the projects will at least be started in a couple decades.

>> No.3019008

>>3018984
>can't sell gold/platinum for trillion
>implying both arent needed for computer and computer related materials.
>implying they arent both valuable for reasons other than looking pretty.

>> No.3019013

>>3018983

Officially? No. Unofficially? They're certainly putting the steps to do so into effect at a rather brisk pace.

>> No.3019020

One company will get a monopoly on mining. They will artificially restrict supply to maintain high prices, while advertising their new product as "Space Gold" and "Space Platinum" which, despite being identical to regular gold and platinum, will become the only materials that are culturally permitted to be used in the construction of ritual objects that the average person is obliged to purchase at least once in their lifetime.

>> No.3019024

>>3018821
It probably would cost at least a trillion to mine it all. In addition to taking decades. Would probably have to invent robots to do all the work...

>> No.3019036

>step1: crash it into the moon
>step2: holy shit a trillion dollars on the moon
>step3: mine that shit, throw it into the ocean
>step4: money!

>> No.3019045

>>3019024
>It probably would cost at least a trillion to mine it all.

Your cost estimates are as reliable as always, Lord Anonymous.

>> No.3019050

>>3019024
There's a scifi book uh, Manifold Space? or something by Stephen Baxter about a private space company that mines Cruithne using genetically engineered cuttlefish to operate the machinery.

>>3019036
I was thinking that as well. I have no idea how feasible that would be, but it sounds good.

>> No.3019053

>>3018992

I agree, it could be too costly. I accept that.

Is that why cannabis is il legal? Anytime I ever hear anyone say "X is illegal because it would rival Y" there seems to be like a million other equally true conspiracy theories.

>> No.3019065
File: 67 KB, 297x355, Pravin_meow.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3019065

>>3019036
>step3: mine that shit, throw it into the ocean
>step4: Inurdaes' undersea empire steal it all
>step4: everythingwentbetterthanexpected.jpg

>> No.3019069

>>3019053

Whoa what the hell?

I cant complete my post because the second half contains something that brings up an error message. It says I cant post it. Weird. Why is that? Does anyone know?

>> No.3019076

>>3019053
>equally true conspiracy theories.

I don't know if they could even be considered conspiracy theories. It's pretty obvious that corporations invested in certain resources and technologies would want to inhibit rivaling technologies unless they were able to produce them themselves.

>> No.3019081

>>3019036
Why in hell would we deliberately bomb the Moon with it? That would only make it harder to mine. Best that it stays in an orbit of some sort, so we can take maximum advantage of microgravity conditions.

We could build a number of cargo carriers (primarily with resources mined from the asteroid), load them with more resources, fill them with fuel also made in space, and then send them to Earth. If they were unmanned, they could be returned to orbit easily with a mass driver.

>> No.3019094

>>3019053
Eh, do you not believe the laws governing our nation create a specific set of economic laws?

>> No.3019096

>>3019069
Something must be tripping the auto-rejection script. It happens sometimes. You can just take a screenshot of your post in notepad and post that.

>> No.3019097

>>3018992

Did the paper industry bring down the cannabis corps?

Because, Ive heard like a ton of equally plausible theories about why cannabis is illegal. ANd I dont think they can all be true.

I am particularly skeptical of the economic reasons. Because, it implies cannabis was some new invention. cannabis has been grown in America for at least as long as cotton. But the cotton industry still got strong. So the paper mills want to ban cannabis because it will eat away their market, even though cannabis has been used as paper for a lot longer?

Thats like, if I came up to the US patent office, with an invention called the screw drover, which is inferior to a screw driver, and then petitioned the government to make strew drivers illegal, and then won.

>> No.3019100

>>3019094

Whats an "economic law"?

Do I believe there is policy to influence the economy? Yes.

>> No.3019101

>$90 Billion for the gold
By the time it's mined the price would have dropped by a factor of hundreds or even thousands. Which is good for electronic consumers(basically everyone) but bad for mining companies.

>> No.3019105

>>3019096

I just rewrote what I said here in a different way:
>>3019097

>> No.3019121

>>3019081
Because then its on the fucking moon, and not floating around randomly in space where is it much harder to keep track of, mine from, land/load/build a base on/fly away.

Not to mention we would have to give it an orbit, which would be harder to do than crashing it into the moon.(both in power needed to move it, and maintaining it in an orbit that doesnt destroy 500 satellites/crash into earth)

Also bonus points, use all the iron/leftover to build a bigger moon base, which we will fucking need to go to mars/further.

>> No.3019123

>>3019097
>Thats like, if [insert huge corporation] came up to the US patent office, with an invention called the screw drover, which is inferior to a screw driver, and then petitioned the government to make strew drivers illegal, and then won.

fix'd. I don't see that as unlikely at all.

>> No.3019142

>>3019100
exactly.

Law = Rules that dictate value

>> No.3019155

>>3019101
So what we need is for electronics companies to get involved in mining to hopefully achieve a vertical monopoly.

>> No.3019157

>>3019100
policy doesn't influence the economy the same way the sides of a water main 'influence' the water.

Policy defines the economy.

>> No.3019169

>>3019123

I do think corporations have power. And I do think that corporations can exert influence on the government in ways that arent beneficial to the country.

But, I believe that in influence works like this
1. Corporations convince the government to subsidize their product (agriculture)
2. Corporations convince the government to tax the competititon (car industry)

I dont think a corporation, that owns the screwdrover patent, could ever ban screw drivers. not ever. Its just too stupid. Law makers wouldnt tolerate this, and the public wouldnt accept it. Its just ridiculous.

It becomes more plausible when we talk about cannabis. Obviously something made it illegal. So there is a correct explaination. I wasnt saying that it couldnt be that some group, out of economic interests made the government do that. Im just saying its way too easy to come up with a half baked theory about this. Its way to easy to say "It threatened their profits" because in a million more circumstances their profits wouldnt count for anything.

>> No.3019185

>>3019157

I would disagree. I would say the economy, and economic behavior, is universal and constant, and the policy is just the shape of the tubes the economy flows through.

Its kind of like a series of tubes.

>> No.3019184

>>3019100
>>3019142
>>3019157
Except, you know that we need more of this shit going forward so the price will maintain what it is, instead of rapidly increases as we run out.

You all assume the current rate we produce it at is enough, it isnt.

>> No.3019186

>>3019121
>Because then its on the fucking moon, and not floating around randomly in space where is it much harder to keep track of
>much harder to keep track of

It's not hard. Literally, all you have to do is figure out its orbit. Which we have already done, I believe.

>mine from

It's easier to mine in microgravity.

>land/load/build a base on/fly away

It's easier to land, load, build on, and fly away from a body in microgravity.

>Not to mention we would have to give it an orbit, which would be harder to do than crashing it into the moon.(both in power needed to move it, and maintaining it in an orbit that doesnt destroy 500 satellites/crash into earth)

That's pretty enormously wrong. For one thing, it's already in an orbit. Moving it closer to Earth could be accomplished with a solar sail and some time, or an ion thruster and some time, or something similar. Crashing it into the Moon would take more time and more energy, and provide no perceivable benefit.

>Also bonus points, use all the iron/leftover to build a bigger moon base, which we will fucking need to go to mars/further.

We don't need a Moon base to get to Mars. We don't even need a space base to get to Mars.

Keeping the asteroid in space is better in pretty much every conceivable way.

>> No.3019189

>>3019169
Don't forget the private prison industry and that the majority of inmates are from non violent offenses.

>> No.3019201

>>3019169
>>3019169
> a corporation, that owns the screwdrover patent, could ever ban screw drivers. not ever.
Go take a second look at history.
Its happened before, its called a monolopy. They do not last forever, but long enough to get their product to the top.

If you have enough money you get your way, or make you opponent wait 10 years, either way you win.

>> No.3019206
File: 76 KB, 310x402, teacher.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3019206

>1. build space elevator
>2. mine asteroids
>3. lower material and 0g-manufactured goods down on the lift
>4. store braking energy
>5. use stored energy to lift people and groundside manufactured goods up
>6. ???
>7. profit!!!!

>> No.3019217 [DELETED] 

>>3019186
You just like to keep using the word "microgravity" to look smart I guess.

Well the moon has macroairparticles and thats why my reason is better.

>> No.3019227

>>3019189

Yeah! Thats horrible. I live in Arizona. I think we have a particular problem with that. Its so corrupt.

Anyway, sorry if I am being too harsh. Im not arguing corporations have never been able to force laws in their favor. Its true, it happens all the time.

>> No.3019229

>>3019206
You forgot
>space elevator breaks
>indestructible wire falls around the earth a couple of times

>> No.3019232

>>3019217
I'm pretty sure it's just the correct term. But what do I know, I'm just another random asshole on 4chan.

>> No.3019233

>>3019201
>monolopy

>> No.3019239

>>3019185
Now i'm gonna shoot myself, only because you think economic behavior is universal

>> No.3019246

>>3019239

No dont do it! Think of the utils you wouldnt be maximizing!

>> No.3019252

>>3019229
>ribbon gently drifts down to ground, causing a few black-outs as it settles on electrical wires
We're haven't been building space elevators as towers in decades.

>> No.3019272

>>3019232
Just because it takes less newtons on paper doesnt mean its the easier way to get the job done. Finding somewhere safe to land, maintaining an orbit as you remove materal, and leaving on the right day because of its orbit are all way more fucking difficult than just mining from the moon.

It is so much less work, because the moon is always right there.

Not to mention if you just throw the ore into the ocean, no fuel is needed to move it, at all.

>> No.3019281
File: 28 KB, 298x361, 1279807855416.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3019281

Every day thousands of people die because of starvation, illnesses and war; yet your biggest problem is that we don´t have enough gold and that we should invest a trillion to get more of it so we could build better electronic devises.

You should all feel bad.

>> No.3019299

>>3019272
>Just because it takes less newtons on paper doesnt mean its the easier way to get the job done.

I agree.

>Finding somewhere safe to land, maintaining an orbit as you remove materal, and leaving on the right day because of its orbit are all way more fucking difficult than just mining from the moon

That depends on a lot of factors, but I'm going to say no. I'm also going to mention microgravity again.

>Not to mention if you just throw the ore into the ocean, no fuel is needed to move it, at all.

First you have to take the ore from the asteroid. Then you have to move the ore to Earth, expending fuel. Then you have to drop it in a controlled fashion, expending fuel. Then you have to collect it from the ocean, expending fuel.

Not to mention that purposely dropping large chunks of metal into the ocean is kind of a PR challenge.

>> No.3019304

And you should ride a bicycle made of honey and talking unicorns off a cliff so you can fly it into dreams.

Your idealism lacks potential and basis.

>> No.3019313

>>3019281
ZERO SUM GAMES!!!

>> No.3019319

>>3019281
This is not an either/or. We can feed everyone on Earth, provide superb medical care to everyone on Earth, and prevent war, at the same time as we expand into space. At current, we are doing none of these things. I would be glad to take one out of four.

>> No.3019320

>>3019299
>First you have to take the ore from the asteroid. Then you have to move the ore to Earth, expending fuel. Then you have to drop it in a controlled fashion, expending fuel. Then you have to collect it from the ocean, expending fuel.

You mine the ore.
You throw it from the moon, to earth(thinking rail gun or something)
Thats is.

Thats a lot less power than flying all the way to the thing, mining the ore, loading it on your tiny ass spaceship, flying it all the way back, and then landing?

>> No.3019321

>>3019281
>implying increased production increase general welfare

>> No.3019335

>>3019281

I think the average social welfare would be much better if we just made one guy REALLY happy, and killed everyone else.

Come at me bro.

>> No.3019343

>>3019299
Space ships are tiny, doing it your way would take what 10,000-100,000 trips?

>> No.3019350

>>3019320
Why couldn't you mine the ore on the asteroid, and fire it from a rail gun on its surface? You'd certainly have less gravity to deal with.

>Thats a lot less power than flying all the way to the thing, mining the ore, loading it on your tiny ass spaceship, flying it all the way back, and then landing?

I didn't suggest we leave it where it is. I suggested we move it closer. The difference is, where your plan leaves us expending extra energy to collide the asteroid with the Moon, work in the Moon's environment (thanks to the dust, among other things, an unattractive prospect), and fire every bit of ore out of its gravity well, mine does not.

>> No.3019359

>>3019343
The size of a starship is variable. Ship transport is not the only method available, nor is it the only one that could be used. It is fairly useful for establishing infrastructure in space, though. Which is the main reason to mine an asteroid in the first place.

>> No.3019378

>>3019313
0+0= 0 ?

So we should be apathetic?

>> No.3019383

>>3019350
>on the surface
Because anything you build on it is not going to be stable, especially for drilling.

You are building on the shell of an egg, but then sucking the egg out.

You would need a lot more energy depending on where you shot from, or your window of shooting would be much smaller.

>expending extra energy to collide the asteroid
Moving it into a stable orbit, and maintaining it is going to take way way more energy than just crashing it into the moon.

What extra force do you keep thinking we need? Its the same as your idea, we just change the orbit, 1-2 degree is enough for it to crash into the moon.

It needs no extra "boost" to hit the moon extra hard.

Dust will settle given time.

>> No.3019386
File: 124 KB, 500x800, 1fa8ba3b893ca6aa911c0393862edd86.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3019386

>>3018782
Congratulations OP, you have just invented a new troll physics idea

>> No.3019392

>>3019378
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_sum_game

He was acting like technological advancement means we can't fix other problems in the world.

>> No.3019399

>>3019350
weaponize it and you could conquer at the same time as you mine.

>I put your resources in your war so you can war for your resources while you resource your war.

>> No.3019407

>>3019350
>I didn't suggest we leave it where it is. I suggested we move it closer.
Every time you took some ore back to earth, the orbit would change, so you would need rockets all over it to maintain whatever new orbit you gave it.

>> No.3019422

>>3019383
>Dust will settle given time.

Actually, dust is a huge problem. Low atmospheric pressure + low gravity + lots of fucking moon dust means that machine parts will wear out constantly.

>> No.3019427

The last thing you want to do is throw these riches back down into a gravity well. We need to figure out how to mine, refine, and use these materials in microgravity instead.

We need to research In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU). There are several small technology prizes and grants for this already. Every bit of material and tech we can get in space is that much less material and tech we don't have to spend billions to launch off of Earth.

>> No.3019437

>>3019383
>Because anything you build on it is not going to be stable, especially for drilling.

I disagree.

>You are building on the shell of an egg, but then sucking the egg out.

Cool. We can build a colony on the inside.

>You would need a lot more energy depending on where you shot from, or your window of shooting would be much smaller.

I keep saying we'd move the asteroid. Perhaps to a Lagrange Point, where it could remain roughly in one place for as long as we needed it. The cost, in time and energy, of doing this might be prohibitive. A near-Earth orbit could be almost as good, without the major drawbacks of a Moonshot.

>Moving it into a stable orbit, and maintaining it is going to take way way more energy than just crashing it into the moon.

If you have to spend any significant energy to maintain its orbit, you have done it wrong.

>What extra force do you keep thinking we need? Its the same as your idea, we just change the orbit, 1-2 degree is enough for it to crash into the moon.

Fine, fine. Conceded.

>Dust will settle given time.

That's not really the problem. The Moon's surface dust is nasty stuff. Machines (and people, if you use them) working this operation on the Lunar surface will suffer greatly.

>> No.3019445

>>3019407
Nope. Just a solar sail or two. No need to burn fuel if you don't have to.

>> No.3019489

>>3019437
>I keep saying we'd move the asteroid
Its huge
We have satellites in all the good orbits around earth, and any extra room is going to be needed for more satellites.
This thing would rape them all as it passed.

>If you have to spend any significant energy to maintain its orbit, you have done it wrong.
Every time you remove material/launch off of it you move it our of orbit, more so as you get past the 50% mined point.

>dust
You are going to get dust either way, as you are mining, so it really doesn't matter if dust is everywhere vs dust is just in your landing/drilling area.

>stable
I dont think it would be, or rather I am 100% sure would find a way to do it, but fuck it and sink the project for 5-10 years while repairing it.

>> No.3019502

>>3018892
why don't we just back our dollars with "trade value" then.

>> No.3019507

>>3019502

Whats trade value?

>> No.3019515

Lets get this shit in orbit. Bring down the prices of gold so we can all have gold wires for our electronics at little cost.

>> No.3019527

>>3019489
>We have satellites in all the good orbits around earth, and any extra room is going to be needed for more satellites.

Then we don't put it there.

>Every time you remove material/launch off of it you move it our of orbit, more so as you get past the 50% mined point.

Solar sails. High-lifetime engines, if necessary. Also, if you have a reason to fire some things in the other direction, like probes or mining robots heading for another asteroid, you can do that too.

>You are going to get dust either way, as you are mining, so it really doesn't matter if dust is everywhere vs dust is just in your landing/drilling area.

Wrong. It matters a whole hell of a lot, because asteroid dust is not the same as Moon dust. Nor do the two have the same horrible effect on complex machinery and lungs.

>> No.3019537
File: 6 KB, 218x252, Yesbird.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3019537

Holy shit. BRB, business proposal for Elon Musk...

>> No.3019548

>>3019489
>You are going to get dust either way, as you are mining, so it really doesn't matter if dust is everywhere vs dust is just in your landing/drilling area.

You're underestimating the dust problem. It is a HUGE engineering issue. Moon dust is extremely abrasive and it sticks like nobody's business.

And it's EVERYWHERE.

>> No.3019550

>>3019527
>Then we don't put it there.
Then we are back to shitty orbits that take lots of energy to maintain OR have a large orbit so it is not always close to earth, ie small window to ship material every 6mon-2years.

>Solar sails. High-lifetime engines
What are the cost of these compared to any additional costs of mining off the moon?

>dust
I have no idea what the difference is, so whatever.

>> No.3019572

>>3019550
>Then we are back to shitty orbits that take lots of energy to maintain OR have a large orbit so it is not always close to earth, ie small window to ship material every 6mon-2years.

Or Lagrange Points, at which there are no satellites, with the added bonus of being a fucking awesome place to put colonies, shipyards, and things of that nature. It's really great when your mine is right next to your refinery which is right next to your factory.

Honestly, I'm not so worried about getting stuff to Earth. It's more about using these resources in space.

>What are the cost of these compared to any additional costs of mining off the moon?

Negligible.

>I have no idea what the difference is, so whatever.

That's what wikipedia is for.

>> No.3019579
File: 800 KB, 2480x1859, SABRE Jet Rocket.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3019579

EXCELLENT! You are all on board! With a simple launch platform we can get a single 250,000 ton mining rig into orbit. The crew will be brought to it gently in "space planes" similar to or perhaps based on the SABRE project. They will unpack the rig from it's launch state to its travel state and fly it to that asteroid or one of the many near earth asteroids just like it. It will then begin carving up the asteroid and launching the valuable pieces in easy to catch re-entry packages making soft landings or splash downs.

It's just that simple folks.

>> No.3019588

We're not mining asteroids for use on Earth. The end. If you cannot figure out why, you should just shut your mouth until you learn enough science and logic to know when to speak.

>> No.3019592

>>3019572
> Lagrange Points
I know L1/2 are being used.

No idea about the others(forgot they existed). I guess L3/4 is the plan? I am not sure if we use L3/4, but we would need to use one of them because we cant send signals through the sun.

I dont know man, your plan might be somewhat better, but I think it just has too high a fuckup % compared to the moon plan.

>> No.3019597

>>3019588
Listen up folks! We got a professor here!

>> No.3019599

>>3019588
>We're not mining asteroids for use on Earth; until we run out of resources on earth due to the ever increasing population, or the technology gets to the point where it is easy and will make someone money.

Fixed that for you.

>> No.3019611

Looks broken to me.

>> No.3019641

>>3019592
Fortunately, although L1 and L2 are both being used, they aren't heavily populated. L1 has fewer occupants. It might turn out to be easiest to use L1 or L2 and just provide for the necessary adjustments to the positions of the other occupants. If not, L4 or L5 are open for business. L3 is fairly far, but it is also an option, of course. Which point, if any, is used depends on a whole bunch of things, not the least of which is what happens in the years leading up to the asteroid's course correction.

The main point here is that landing the asteroid on any significant body would just make it harder to get its resources out to where they're needed, due to gravity. We want to use these billions of tons of metals primarily in space, anyway.

>> No.3019644

Plenty of people here implying it will be too expensive to retrieve a 30 trillion dollar asteroid. So, does someone think getting a mining rig into orbit and carving up the asteroid would cost more than 30 trillion? The only way to kill the profit or make it undesirable is to show the cost approaching within ten percent of 30 trillion. And that's WITHOUT derping and utilizing NASA costs.

Because it should only be about 100 Billion, an intentional overestimate of the cost. This will grant a hefty profit for even the tiny and low metal content asteroid in the OP.

>> No.3019664

DON'T MOVE THE ASTEROID!

Carve into it! Move the pieces where you need them! Land only what needs to be landed. Put into orbits what needs to go into those orbits for their construction. The mining rig will have a decent machine shop and use the materials to do on site repairs, needing very little support from earth, mainly just fresh food every month or so.

>> No.3019678

>>3019641
>I just still think we would need a significant base, and the place to have that base is the moon.

>>3019644
It would have to be an independent company
Not to mention the political shitstorm of who it belongs to.

>> No.3019684

>>3019678
I agree, but I think the best location for that base is in space.

>> No.3019702

>>3019664
Hydroponics. Grow your own food, worry less about resupply.

>> No.3019720

>>3019678
That company would need just a couple of charismatic headliners to field PR and fight the shitstorm. The company would actually ignore politics, forge ahead, and grab the rock. Politicians would argue amongst themselves, and flip flop between support and protest when dealing with each other and the PR dudes. Once the metal is ready for shipment, they will shut up and open their wallets like good boys.

>> No.3019738

>>3019702
It's a mining rig, not a farming rig. There will be hydroponics, but it simply won't be enough to do the job by itself. Resupply will be necessary.

>> No.3019763

>>3019720
Except this is a trillion fucking dollars, and some countries have missiles.

>> No.3019764

>>3019738
There is no reason it can't be a self-sufficient mining rig. There is also no reason it can't have a farm rig stationed near it, to take some of the burden of feeding the crews on it and other close rigs.

>> No.3019814

>>3019763
Exactly, they have missiles, and they don't want to use them on each other, but don't want others to use them on them. Meanwhile, this wonderful corporation is kind enough to give the metal to any contributor to the project as well as any buyer after production has begun and they can begin taking orders. Seriously, they aren't all going to unify and tell one person no, since they ALL want it.

>>3019764
There are cost limits, mass limits for launch of the main rig, mass limits for space plane launches, tech limits as to what that mass can contain in any launch, cost limits as to what tech can be changed, et cetera. 100 billion is an over-estimation in 2009 USD, but it's not THAT great of an over-estimation. What will make the mining rig "self sufficient" will be the fact that it's profitable.

>> No.3019841

this would cause inflation!!!

>> No.3019845

>>3019814
The mining rig is not an end in itself. Hopefully, it would be the first of many. The sooner hydroponic stations are developed, the better. Especially when colonies begin to be built. This is more of a long-term thought.

>> No.3019851

>>3019845
In that case, yeah. Once the mining rig is up there and underway, no reason NOT to build a farming rig.

>> No.3019931

From a scientific perspective, gold is needed to line the insides of spaceships in order to block gamma radiation during interstellar travel. As well as lining bunkers.

Platinum is also important for niggers chains, we need more rap music.

>> No.3019999
File: 58 KB, 400x291, Mining.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3019999

I went to my CAD software, and worked up a concept on how the mining would take place.

>> No.3020020

>>3019999
let's get it done then

>> No.3020025

>>3019999
Oh you.

>> No.3020049

>>3019999
wow, is that magic?

>> No.3020063

>>3019999
Used to play, decided to do something with my life.

>> No.3020068
File: 252 KB, 1280x1024, asteroid_mover..jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3020068

>>3019999

>> No.3020097

>>3020063
Which is why you are presently on 4chan.

>> No.3020112

Purely from a physical standpoint, can we get things into a stable earth orbit by using lunar sswingby?

>> No.3020186
File: 9 KB, 240x240, 1-beluga_whale.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3020186

Yall know that over millions of years many of such asteroids have already landed on the moon.

>> No.3020223

>>3020186
Kind of, they IMPACTED on the moon, same way they did on earth. Floating asteroids don't have to be dug for, only carved. And they don't have to be lifted, only adjusted and landed.

>> No.3020239
File: 53 KB, 650x516, RaymondCassel-rcassel_NSS_submission3-650.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3020239

>>3020223

I'd rather just hollow it out and fire the valuable materials somewhere else. The deltaV just to, say, bring it to a higher orbit; or even shape its orbit into something round, is completely absurdly ridiculously high.

And I mean "You will need a Project Orion spacecraft with one million 50 megatonne nukes" sort of hard.

>> No.3020246

>>3020239
Dude, your quantification of intellectual masturbation is harshing my buzz

>> No.3020255
File: 39 KB, 183x183, 1275698900823.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3020255

>>3020246

=3

>> No.3020256

>>3020239
You already know I 100% agree with carving the asteroids and launching the valuable pieces.

>> No.3020262
File: 69 KB, 679x427, HA!.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3020262

>>3019579
>Sabre
There went every last bit of credibility you had.

>> No.3020266

>>3020256

Just tossing it out here on /sci/.

>> No.3020299

>>3020262
Do you have an alternative? Have a problem with the SABRE specifically? Or do you think a hybrid jet-rocket is fundamentally infeasible?

>> No.3020314

>>3020256
>Cut asteroid into little pieces
>Lob them towards Earth
>Over 90% of the valuable materials burn up during reentry
Sounds legit.

>> No.3020325

>over "10,000 tons of gold and 100,000 tons of platinum", or an approximate value at the time of its discovery of "$90 billion for the gold
Still not worth the cost of bringing it back. Not to mention the fact that your $90B value will evaporate once the influx changes the demand.

>> No.3020329
File: 60 KB, 626x421, LTV_orbiting_Moon.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3020329

>>3020314

>implying we wouldn't fill landers with valuable minerals so they are protected during re-entry and can vernier around the course to properly reach their destination

>> No.3020331

>>3020325
>your $90B value will evaporate once the influx changes the demand.
This. You dump 10,000 tons of gold on the market, and its price will plummet.

>> No.3020340
File: 554 KB, 1122x768, 1302660191414.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3020340

>>3020331

Then you hoard them in orbit and release them according to demand.

Alternatively you threaten to release the masses of gold and platinium and hold the Earth hostage.

>> No.3020347
File: 249 KB, 1111x667, Pegasus rocket launch.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3020347

>>3020299
Mark my words, there will NEVER be an airbreathing engine that produces appreciable thrust at greater than ~4.5 km/s/mach 13. Even if you manage to slow the air down enough with your precooler, you'll never be able to accelerate it back up to more than these velocities, seeing how even a pure rocket cannot exceed this.

Chemical rockets are still your best bet for Earth launch; once in orbit, you options open up, but in the end chemical rockets are the most common fallback for heavy applications due to the inherent low thrust/high power consumption of electric thrusters.

>> No.3020349

>>3020340
I like your plan B. But those are fighting words, and would result in military action of some sort probably.

Plan A would work. You become the new De Beers, but for gold and platinum.

>> No.3020365

>>3020347
Seriously, 4.5km/s? That's perfect! That's halfway to orbit, then switch to pure chemical thrust for the rest of the trip. The whole point of the concept is not some idiocy about expecting the jet portion to do all the work, but that the jet portion greatly reduces the rocket portion and the overall cost of the vehicle.

>> No.3020372
File: 797 KB, 2560x1600, 1255785991080.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3020372

You would need to balance out the demand so as to not fuck the market completely. I say wait a bit until we are much more numerous as a species. We can have colonized the moon and mars in the next 100 years. By then it would be ok to asteroid mine. Before then, it's just a matter of economic balance. Gold value would plummet.

>> No.3020391

>>3020349
I think the plan B is "release on the market". Competitors play by our rules or we crash the market. It's not like the whole plan depends on one metal. Everything is up there.

>> No.3020398

We should build foundries and habitats in orbit around Venus for this, instead of Earth.

If you fuck up and hit Venus with that asteroid instead of putting it into a stable orbit, no harm done.

If you fuck up and hit Earth with that asteroid...

>> No.3020408

>>3020372
First off, it's not like you;d instantly get the entire rock. Second, the population is big enough as it is, sadly, too much of earth is living in mud huts.

Step one, mine that rock. Step two, watch demand begin to fall. Step three, encourage major construction projects, and point out how mega projects are now possible since FINALLY that amount of metal actually exists to build it. Step four, profit off of arcologies becoming the new skyscraper.

>> No.3020417

>>3020398
DUDE, we are NOT moving the whole asteroid! We are sending the rig TO the asteroid, doing the work ON the asteroid, and sending back the little pieces. Why move it to venus or anywhere else if you know you're just going to be sending bits to earth?

>> No.3020425
File: 5 KB, 168x251, 1303316878546s.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3020425

>>3020408
You made me proud. However, you'd have to contend with idiot corporations trying to rush it and get too much ore at first. There's always that route to major fuck-uppery.

>> No.3020441

>>3020425
Let them fuck themselves over. If I have to, I'll keep the materials and start my own megaproject. Carve the asteroid into a colony and send ships to earth to pick up colonists. Whatever will be, will be. Let those bastards overmine an asteroid to ruin, while I pace myself and have a good safety record. Let them screw up whatever country they deal with and re-create space Cuba or space Venezuela, I seek only to increase quality of life. Let them do whatever, it just removes more of the competition when they fail.

>> No.3020459

>>3020365
4.5 km/s, with a cryogenic, low-density LH2 propellant that involves massive, draggy tankage that will likely add about 50-75% to your drag losses, given your high-Q lifting (rather than ballistic) ascent... or you could switch to a higher-density hydrocarbon fuel, and run out of juice at about 3.5 km/s... and keep in mind, these are theoretical MAXIMUMS.

When it comes down to it, ditching your oxidizer at the expense of 2x the fuel, 10x the engine weight, and still only getting halfway there is not worth the trouble.

Also, for reference, the X-43 achieved 3.3 km/s with a liquid-hydrogen-fuelled scramjet. SABRE, even if it works, will be nothing revolutionary.

>> No.3020502

>>3019386
Its possible if you own a lot of gold.

>> No.3020507

>>3020459
You're right, all of those things are stupid. Which is why we won't do any of them. And if SABRE still does that then we can nix the "possibly SABRE based" from the plan to "definitely not SABRE based" for the space planes.

But space planes and hybrid jet-rockets will work. Keep in mind it will be a true hybrid, not like a car hybrid carrying two engines nonsense.

>> No.3020509

>>3020441
Be sure to call me when you get this started. I'm sure you need an asteroid janitor. I'd be interested.

>> No.3020516

Lol this reminds me of dead space

not a good idea to go mining out in space

>> No.3020605

>>3020507
>not like a car hybrid carrying two engines nonsense.
*facepalm*
You DO realize that even pure rockets use different engines for different altitudes, right? Upper-stage engines are always optimized for vacuum thrust, while lower-stages are optimized for a compromise optimum altitude at somewhere around 10-25% of ambient sea level pressure.

There's a reason they do things the way they do now. There's a reason SSTO hasn't been done from Earth. There's a reason they don't use horizontal takeoff or airbreathing engines for space launch. When it comes down to it, these technologies are pure novelties that, while indeed worth putting research into, will ultimately fall to nothing but filler material for lit-major sci-fi writers.

>> No.3020668

>>3020605
Yes, I am aware that in multi-stage rockets each stage is specialized for its altitude. How does that make SSTO impossible?

And one possibility of the spaceplane is that it will in fact be two planes, a lifter plane with the actual orbital vehicle. As long as they both come back for refuel, it's fine.

>> No.3020779

>>3020668
SSTO is not impossible; quite to the contrary, the Atlas rocket was theoretically capable of it way the fuck back in 1962, if you simply launched it without an appreciable payload.

The point is that these practices and technologies are IMPRACTICAL. COULD you launch an Atlas in an SSTO configuration? Certainly, but it'd be pointless since the whole rocket is expendable anyways. COULD you build an airbreathing rocket that will follow a lifting, high-Q trajectory and burn atmospheric oxygen? Yes, but in the end it'd be larger, heavier, more expensive and have less payload than a plain ballistic 2STO rocket. Sometimes, technological developments are actually superior to the alternatives; when these are found, they usually quickly replace existing versions (see: regeneratively-cooled rocket engines; photovoltaic power sources for satellites). But sometimes a technology just doesn't pan out; airbreathing space rockets are one of those technologies.

>> No.3022345

>>3020779
Have you heard of 1.5 stage rockets. Several cores with propellant cross feed, so when the boosters drop off the center core is full. Use this with an aerospike center engine and you have a valid 1.5 stage to orbit.

I am also partial to the idea of using air breathing boosters.

GE90
Dry weight: 16,644 lb
Thrust 74,000 to 115,000 lbf
Specific impulse < 10,000

Use a few of those until mach .9 and have them drop off with a guided parachute. Next switch over to ram jets until mach 8.

>> No.3023467

>>3020779
Still not seeing anything that makes space planes impossible, just the very specific set of conditions in ONE sabre design you do not like are impossible.

Heck, if you want to talk about the way we do things now, why the fuck have we stuck with the space shuttle for so long, and why is our best replacement for it NOTHING? That thing is horribly overpriced for its job.

Just because there is something we are not doing right now, doesn't mean it's terrible. When you get right down to it, we haven't even tried. Heck, technically Virgin Galactic tried and their little space plane works. My original idea was basically an upscaled version of that. If SABRE doesn't pan out, whatever. The point is the thing that moves people into LEO needs re-useable, requiring only a refuel.

>> No.3025439
File: 365 KB, 1168x2812, 1279103816796.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3025439

>>3019229