/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.3035686]

Why aren't we building a factory in space?

[Anonymous No.3035695]

Launch vehicles are too expensive.

We need a space blimp.

[Anonymous No.3035698]

because we cannot into space economy

[Anonymous No.3035699]

Because no raw materials or target consumers in space.

[Anonymous No.3035700]

Why can't space be the end result, like explosions in the middle east are currently?

[Anonymous No.3035706]

We need a launch loop, but we need lots of nanotube cabling for that.

[Anonymous No.3035709]

>>3035700
because at that point, you're going to see some serious shit.

[Anonymous No.3035724]

>>3035699
Target consumers are on earth. Harvest shit from space and send it home.

[Anonymous No.3035732]

>>3035686
Religion

\thread

[Anonymous No.3035741]

>>3035724
>Harvest shit from space
Why

[Anonymous No.3035743]

Step 1. Fix shit on Earth first.
Step 2. Start doing some shit in space.

[Anonymous No.3035750]

>>3035743
Step 1: Abandon Earth
Step 2: Start from scratch
>Totally not a suggestion for God

[Anonymous No.3035791]

>>3035743

Result: Nobody ever does anything in space because something on Earth always needs fixing

[Anonymous No.3035797]

>>3035750

Oh ho hoho! I am being trolled, what a splendid turn of events!

[Anonymous No.3035804]

>>3035743

Wrong, start doing shit in space, to fix shit on earth. We follow your logic we will never get up there

[Anonymous No.3035808]

>>3035791
When I say fixing, I mean do it right the first time so that maintenance is easy. It will require a complete shift in consciousness in the entire population, but it would work. The less you have to worry about the world, the more you can shoot into space off of it.

[Anonymous No.3035816]

>>3035804
... there really is something to this I'm not catching, isn't there. Can someone explain this to me?

[Anonymous No.3035820]

>>3035741

Because the real estate in our local galaxy will pay for the investment in accessing it millions of times over.

[Anonymous No.3035842]

So what I'm gathering from this thread is completely disregard even considering stricter regulation of resource consumption and just skip straight ahead to space mining so we can burn through them faster.

We'll never last.

[Anonymous No.3035849]

>>3035808

A nice sentiment, but we're pretty much on a clock thanks to our rate of consumption. People love to talk about end of world scenarios etc etc, but fact is if we don't do it soon resulting chaos from wars over access to oil, other forms of energy, clean water etc could cripple our infrastructure to the point where it really won't be feasible. The past 2 decades have been optimal for full scale investment into the colonization of space, and now's not a bad time either but if we keep waiting and we get stuck you can bet your ass we're going to go extinct on this planet.

[Anonymous No.3035878]

>>3035849
I'm just saying there are more attainable fixes until we can colonize other planets. I agree with you, the entire world is in shitstorm mode right now, so its the perfect setting for the human race to get its act together before we actually leave our orbit in droves.

[Anonymous No.3035884]

Environmentalism and space exploration are two sides of the same fucking coin. Securing the future of humanity. If we do just one, we're probably fucked. First, because we're never going to get earth perfect, so the chance of some bad shit happening when we're stuck on this rock will be high. Second, because if we don't look after the only biosphere we can live in, we'll bankrupt ourselves whacking all the problems that arise later, so we'll run out of resources for space.

The problem is that, while an investment in both environmentalism and space exploration pays off big time in the long run, they don't make anyone any money in the short-term. And the returns do not necessarily go to the investors.

[Anonymous No.3035894]

>>3035842
That's really not how I would look at it, in fact if anything colonization of space means we should start assessing our impact on our environment which will, encompass more than just earth, before we embark on using new technologies. But you definitely get more leeway for error and once you've got mining operations coming in who knows what you might discover.

I mean think about it this way, If someone actually paused during the big commotion of getting the mass manufacturing of cars under way, and thought hey wait a minute what effect could putting one of these things in every home mean to our environment, and how should we dispose of waste from manufacturing these things the car industry might not have had such a negative impact on the planet. But we shouldn't need space exploration to figure that out it should be lesson we learned already and carry forward with us into space exploration

[Anonymous No.3035924]

This is turning into an interesting thread, but I have to get up in the morning. I'm gonna rehash the shit out of this tomorrow.

[Anonymous No.3035939]

>>3035878

Thata the problem, if we keep getting stuck to crutches, we're always going to put shit off that needs to be done. Oh lets just reduce our dependence on oil, so its not so bad. How about fuck that, the stuff is bad for us as a species and though its what keeps our society running if we don't do something soon and drastic we're going to have a bigger mess to deal with than we might able to clean up. I mean think about it, you set a goal like reducing our oil dependence by 30% in 20 years and you fall short 10percent you've made some decent progress but it might not be enough. You set goals like 100% oil dependence by in 20 years and you fall short by 40 percent you're 've still achieved a 60% reduction as opposed to just 20%. And why would we fall short, because our institutions are going to cut corners anyway they can to save money and make money and we know this, lets not pretend its a potentiality its just a fact.

Its a now type deal, because we don't know what tomorrow holds. And yea maybe you'll put that homework off a day or two and it cost you that A because you had to rush watever no biggie, but when that A you're striving for is continued survival you start your homework today.

[Anonymous No.3036011]

>>3035724
There's no reason to ship things from space back to Earth. We should just move all our target consumers to space.

[Anonymous No.3036016]

The question isn't "why", it's "why not".

Why not aren't we building a factory in space?

[Anonymous No.3036030]

>>3036016

Very high initial cost, unproven asteroid mining techniques.

But once the first company makes a fortune on the rare elements in an asteroid, expect ten missions in the next year.

[Anonymous No.3036036]

>>3036016
Because no-one has developed a plan for it, complete with the necessary hardware, personnel, and clearance, among other things. It doesn't look like any government space programs are interested in establishing a space factory in short order, but certain private space companies do want to go, in the near future.

Eventually, it will be done.

[Anonymous No.3036206]

I guess this is what it would be like.

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.3036218]

>>3035686
Right now the cost to get a kilogram just into low earth orbit is some fuckhuge amount. think $10,000 per kg. I believe the SpaceX rockets drastically reduce this amount, but it's still over $1,000.

However, it is coming:

The technology:
http://techland.time.com/2011/04/06/spacexs-falcon-heavy-most-powerful-private-rocket-ever/
http://www.universetoday.com/73536/nasa-considering-rail-gun-launch-system-to-the-stars/
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article4799369.ece

The will:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8bIQLiKi3g
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2011/02/lord-british-wants-to-take-you-to-space-and-hes-closer-th
an-you-think.ars/3

The time (and one of the main kicks in the ass to get it started):
http://www.hplusmagazine.com/articles/forever-young/manhattan-beach-project-end-aging-2029
http://www.sens.org/sens-research/research-themes
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3329065877451441972#
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101128/full/news.2010.635.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/nov/28/scientists-reverse-ageing-mice-humans

The economic benefits:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid_mining
>At 1997 prices, a relatively small metallic asteroid with a diameter of 1 mile contains more than $20 trillion US dollars worth of industrial and precious metals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_Earth_Objects#Near-Earth_asteroids
>As of May 2010, 7,075 near-Earth asteroids are known,[14] ranging in size up to ~32 kilometers (1036 Ganymed).[16] The number of near-Earth asteroids over one kilometer in diameter is estimated to be 500 - 1,000.
http://www.virgingalactic.com/

[just chicken No.3036270]

PENIS

[Anonymous No.3037499]

bump this thread right here

[Anonymous No.3038039]

>>3037499
K

[Anonymous No.3038061]

How would a space factory even function?

Wouldn't you need to keep shipping propellant up there just to move things around?

And wouldn't it be a pain in the ass to secure shit? Everything would keep flying or bouncing around with the slightest tap.

[Anonymous No.3038118]

What can be built in a space factory that can't be built on earth? If you can come up with something I'll fund it.

[Anonymous No.3038144]

>>3038118
There are certain materials than can only be formed properly in zero gravity.

For example, I know that metals used in solar panels, when formed on Earth, have variable density from cooling under the constant force of gravity which disappears when allowed to cool in space and significantly improves the efficiency of the solar panels they are used in.

[Anonymous No.3038223]

>>3038144
>>3038118
...so where's my funding?

[Anonymous No.3038244]

>>3036036

You are actually wrong
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJ4KIB4GqEA

This is an artists conception of Robert Zubrin and David Baker's Mars Direct plan, circa 1989. You'll notice it has us establishing a permanent presence on Mars. Which could have been done then for about 5-20 billion dollars a year. Which is 16% of NASA's budget.

There is an hour long fully described version on youtube as well called "The case for mars" which you can find. It's from a 1997 talk.

That was twenty two and fourteen years ago respectively.

This is only one example.

The above
Courtesy of another anon in a similar thread yesterday

[Anonymous No.3038255]

>>3038223
I'll start adding to my piggybank tomorrow.
Will 30 million do? With my salary and cost of living I'll have it for you in about 10 thousand years.

[Anonymous No.3038271]

>>3038118

The point of a space factory is not building new shit, the point is establishing a base of operations so you don't have to drag everything you need from earth into space. If you can manufacture the things you need off planet then you drastically reduce the weight of anything you need to send into orbit.

[снайпер No.3038272]

I've got your space factory right here:

http://www.mediafire.com/?cyjsmnbi1jt0cbo

It is a .pdf going over the general design and costs of a space habitat called Asten. It would cost ~600 billion dollars, house 20,000 people and perform construction and microgravity research.

Picture related.

The habitat is composed of Bigelow Aerospace style habitat modules strung together in a cylinder, with spacing made for wide, kilometer long parks and recreation facilities, and a central hub where construction takes place. There are elevators going from the outer ring of habitats to the inner construction facilities, and some of these elevators are actually research labs that can be moved up and down through the tube to increase or decrease the amount of gravity.

The entire habitat is spun to simulate ~1g.

[Anonymous No.3038281]

>>3038223
>>3038255
So I just noticed one space shuttle launch costs 450 million... so sorry, you'll need to wait another 990000 extra years

[Anonymous No.3038280]

>>3038255

30million is not a lot of money to an institution or a country. No one expects you to finance this personally. There are people who could finance these endeavors without breaking a sweat

[Anonymous No.3038296]

>>3038272

See that's a pretty big project, but I'm certain if we spent 600billion on this instead of giving 700billion to the same fuckers responsible for the financial crisis, we would get more out of the money over the course of 10 years than we're going to get out of the fiasco we are currently dealing with

[Anonymous No.3038304]

>>3038144
why not just form those instruments in huge factory planes going free fall powered by nuclear engines

[Anonymous No.3038312]

>>3038304
I think it'd be better just to use an antigrav factory, I think I have a spare one in the shed

[Anonymous No.3038322]

>>3035686

This thread makes me want to buy starcraft 2

[снайпер No.3038334]

>>3038244
There is no point to a permanent presence on Mars before we even have a permanent presence in space.

Our first step should be the exploitation of easy to reach mineral wealth [asteroids] and space habitats in Earth orbit.

THEN we can start thinking about dropping a colony on Mars.

Going Mars first gets us nothing. Mars is extremely difficult to land on, it's going to make any colonization efforts a pain, and it will never serve as a way to relieve population stress on Earth, there are simply too many people being born for us to possibly lift to Mars right now or in the near future.

And in fact, as far as colonization goes, aerostat habitats in the upper Venereal atmosphere beat out every single possible benefit of Mars colonization, from being easier to reach, to having better available fuel, energy, and water and even being more livable.

And even better than a Venereal colony are simple space habitats. Mining asteroids and building large space stations that house thousands.

Seriously, ask yourselves what we are going to do on Mars.

We are far better off doing this the right way. The fascination with Mars will lead us to another dead end like the Apollo missions did. We land there, people celebrate and go USA #1!! and then space exploration is defunded and forgotten for the next fifty years all over again.

I'm not saying we should forget about Mars, I want to see it colonized, but let us be realistic here. Going to Mars first is not a good idea, we need to build out and expand our infrastructure in near orbit and solidify our presence in space. Exploration and colonization has to be step by step. You can't just one day decide to build a city on Mars with nothing in place to allow it, and every proposal for going to Mars seems not to care a wit about long term exploration in space, and only about landing men on mars as if that is some kind of exemplary achievement compared to everything else we could have done.

[Anonymous No.3038348]

>>3038334

I agree, a 100%

[Anonymous No.3038365]

>>3036218
I laughed for a solid five minutes at that pic.

But yeah.

Carry on. I see Chanep is back.

[Anonymous No.3038369]

>>3038348

I posted the link because I thought it was interested, and as an example plan for colonization. But you're right NEOs and artificial constructions are the way to go if we approach space colonization and exploration seriously

[Anonymous No.3038384]

>>3038334

>building large space stations that house thousands.

Easiest way to do this is to balloon a nickel iron asteroid. You drill a hole into a large asteroid pack the hole with comet ice and then plug the hole. Then you heat the asteroid up with solar mirrors/lasers.

Once it reaches a certain temperature the asteroid will balloon up due to the ice turning into steam and the metal becoming fluid.

Once it cools you have a large nickel iron sphere kilometers wide.

[Anonymous No.3038383]

>>3038369

If we can take control of the asteroid belt we're pretty much set to start looking at planetary colonization and mining. At the end of the day a serious assessment has to be made as to what will be the most lucrative missions. That is where we're going to want to start. The whole point is to get space exploration to pay for itself.

[Anonymous No.3038405]

>>3038384

That actually sounds pretty fucking cool.

[Anonymous No.3038428]

>>3038405

It's not a new idea (been around since the 60's) but I've recently been researching space engineering technologies.

I've decided that before we go into space we'll start serious sea colonisation though. Most of the worlds resources are under the oceans and it's a far less hostile environment than space.

You can also build artificial islands. To house workers on off shore wind farms, undersea mining and aqua culture.

[Anonymous No.3040823]

code word for future self: blow up you know what

[Anonymous No.3042622]

>>3038428

This is a very good point, and furthers the necessity for better resource management on earth.

I just want to say I am very pleased with this thread. So I'm gonna bump it with a space elevator.

[Anonymous No.3044552]

Oh look, this threads still up.

[Anonymous No.3044568]

>>3038428
>underwater, not hostile

Yes it is, it's a horrible challenge to work at deep sea.


>>3038384 steam inflation

Massive explosion imminent...

But it won't get anywhere near that far. Asteroids aren't going to be solid chunks of metal and ore doesn't inflate.

[Anonymous No.3044618]

>>3044568

Are you seriously suggesting that deep sea environments are more hostile than space?

[Anonymous No.3044745]

>>3044618

Yes.

[Anonymous No.3044769]

>>3044618
They are. It's just the deep sea is easier to get to than space.

[Anonymous No.3044775]

>>3044745
So we're ignoring a greater challenge by exploring easy space?

[Anonymous No.3044781]

>>3044775

Space is cool.

Fish aren't.

[Anonymous No.3044791]

>>3044781
So you hate life.
>space: the final frontier for antisocial misanthropes

[Anonymous No.3044797]

>>3044791

[Anonymous No.3044803]

>>3035797
Damn this made me laugh out loud!
I hear him saying it xD

[Anonymous No.3044833]

>>3044791
But you can't drop metallic telephone poles on your enemies from the bottom of the sea.

You can't drop your sealab on your enemies as a last-ditch attempt.

You can't take pictures of your enemies missile bases from the bottom of the sea.

You can't gain significant amounts of energy everywhere with solar cells.

You can't escape the effects from a significant impact event in the sea if the hit happens on your hemisphere.

You can do a whole lot and a lot more resources should be put to exploiting subsurface resources, just not as much as into space.

[Anonymous No.3044867]

[Anonymous No.3044969]

>>3044833
>But you can't drop metallic telephone poles on your enemies from the bottom of the sea.
If we managed to get around this whole "war" thing, research wouldn't have to be squandered on how to fuck up your enemy.
>You can't drop your sealab on your enemies as a last-ditch attempt.
What kind of kamikaze bullshit is that?
>You can't take pictures of your enemies missile bases from the bottom of the sea.
Theres that whole war thing again.
>You can't gain significant amounts of energy everywhere with solar cells.
Tidal and wave energies are another hugely untapped method of harvesting power.
>You can't escape the effects from a significant impact event in the sea if the hit happens on your hemisphere.
Evacuation chambers built into seabeds would be a good idea.
>You can do a whole lot and a lot more resources should be put to exploiting subsurface resources, just not as much as into space.
Why can't you be happy with what you can have readily rather than what you might have eventually? I'm not saying space is an unacceptable goal, but the ocean is right there man.

[Anonymous No.3045001]

>>3044969
>I'm not saying space is an unacceptable goal, but the ocean is right there man.
Partly it's because of the weight of potentials. The ocean floor is large, but it's dwarfed, to say the least, by what's available beyond the atmosphere.

Also, I can't help but draw parallels between the Caves of Steel of Asimov fame and subsurface colonization.

[Anonymous No.3045012]

>>3044969
What exactly do you think a group would gain from sea exploration research, beyond doing it simply to do science? I can assure you that space has a better set of financial reasons to be invested in, not even including all the war purposes you discredit.

on a side note, the idea the humanity can exist without war is childish

[Anonymous No.3045030]

>>3045012
The spacelist guy here, while I doubt humans will get over our wars in any foreseeable future, I do take exception to you calling him childish about it.

[H+ No.3045162]

>>3036218

Robert Zubrin is one of my personal heroes. Dude has it straight.

Also, pretty much all those links are awesome. Do we have these in our new sticky yet?

[Anonymous No.3045173]

gravity makes it hard to get there

[H+ No.3045180]

>>3038244

Hey, what's up. That Anon was me.

You pretty much quoted me exactly.

Which is awesome. I'm very passionate about Mars, and that plan is the best example of the shit that we could be doing if we would collectively get our asses together.

[H+ No.3045217]

>>3038334

I agree with exploiting resources of asteroids as being of more immediate direct sue, but there is no reason we cannot do both. The point of going to Mars is not to have an immediately useful prospect for population expansion, but as a testbed of the effects of long term human habitation of other worlds, of creating innovation by using local resources instead of taking everything with us (which has the delta-v problem) and of course examining Mars for the evidence of life.

Considering the relative cheapness of the Mars Direct plan (It's about a month and a half of the cost of the War in Iraq.) I'd say that it is worth it even just for the moral benefits. "We're the kind of species that needs a frontier." One of the main things that prevented NASA from doing anything truely astounding since 1969 is no clear mandate with a set goal. There was no set order that "Yes we need to go to X by 20XX." It's just himming and hawwing and bureaucracy.

This is the kind of thing a mission to Mars can help. It opens up new exploration and creates new dreams for a whole generation of youth. It ups the value of spaceflight in the public eye, and this can be more beneficial in the longrun than a lot of minor practical benefits in the short term.

[Anonymous No.3045827]

>>3038272 The entire habitat is spun to simulate ~1g.

That's going to be a bitch when it comes to entering or leaving the place. Imagine parking your car up to your house that has to spin fast enough to generate a g, odd.

The air inside is going to behave very unusually compared to earth, it's not going to feel the same acceleration as bodies on the floor will.

[Anonymous No.3045976]

>>3045827
Imagine adding hub at one or both ends of the habitat, synchronized to counter-rotate at exactly the same speed, with the docking facilities in it.

Or just fuck that and synchronize your rotation with the habitat and dock at the axis, like in the Elite games. Though I admit that after a hundred cargo runs I tend to buy myself an autopilot to do the docking for me. And that also applies here.

[Anonymous No.3046072]

>>3045976

Docking hatch on a clutch could work I suppose.

A spinning habitat is probably more complicated that initial thoughts of it.