/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.4296094]

Asteroid mining bots could send down payloads to crash into the ocean safely.
>Y/N?
What was the name of that near object that people claimed had 30,000 tonnes of gold in it?

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.4296119]

But the ocean already has gold in it. We can use robots to mine that gold instead of going to space for it.

[Anonymous No.4296123]

>>4296119

>Corrosion + Other Effects via Contact With water.
>More gold in space.
>Cost Efficiency is better for space.
>Where you gonna find 30KT of Gold in water?

[Anonymous No.4296126]

It's possible to do.

It's just not worth it ATM. We have plenty of gold right here. We're even using it for pointless shit like jewelry, or even worse, hoarding it in bars and not using it at all.

[Anonymous No.4296125]

>>4296119
hi mad.

The gold and stuff in asteroids is easier to get into.
It's easier to go down than up.
Crash the stuff into the water, pick it up cheap with waiting tugs.

[EK !EKFQOBUFnQ No.4296132]

because we don't need any more jewgolds

[Anonymous No.4296134]

>>4296123

Omg, WHO MADE GOLD CORRODE!?

[Anonymous No.4296135]

>>4296126
it's worth it if you want to return to a strong gold standard.

[Anonymous No.4296137]

>>4296135
>it's worth it if you pick an arbitrary standard and then spend all your efforts trying to show everyone why that choice was arbitrary and pointless

[EK !EKFQOBUFnQ No.4296138]

>>4296135
gold standard is sooo 1950's. we need a joule standard

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.4296139]

>>4296125

>The gold and stuff in asteroids is easier to get into.

No, it isn't. You still need to get up there, and we have no automated mining technology that would make asteroid mining possible or it would be used in terrestrial mines.

>It's easier to go down than up.

I agree, it's easier to go down into the ocean than up into space, by many orders of magnitude.

>Crash the stuff into the water, pick it up cheap with waiting tugs.

Not that easy, you left out the entire process of getting the equipment there. And it's easier to suction up the mined gold, manganese, silver, platinum, etc. from a surface support ship than to construct a railgun or automated small rocket assembly and fueling facility on the surface of an asteroid without any human intervention.

[Anonymous No.4296143]

We'll mine asteroids when it's worth it.

Just like we'll colonize the ocean when it's worth it.

[M No.4296147]

How about robots that could take gold from the Earth's core? There's enough gold in the Earth to cover the entire land surface of the planet 2 feet deep. There's enough platinum to cover the Earth 7 feet deep.

[Anonymous No.4296148]

>>4296138
I thought that way too for a bit, but then I realized that using "energy" as a currency doesn't give you a system for communicating (or calculating) the relative value of materials and resources.

You can still use it as currency, just don't think you're escaping any of the issues that other monetary systems have.

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.4296149]

>>4296143

>Just like we'll colonize the ocean when it's worth it.

Well, no, if there are people willing to pay for the structures and equipment simply for the novelty of living underwater, it will happen sooner. It's their money, you can't tell them how to spend it, if they want to fund such a thing they'll do it. That's how the first colony is being built as we speak.

[Anonymous No.4296151]

>>4296147
>the core
No. We can't even get down to the mantle.

But there's more than enough in the crust for any near-future purposes.

[Anonymous No.4296154]

>>4296149
No, you don't get it what I mean.

When people do it, that is when they deem it to be "worth it".

[M No.4296156]

>>4296151
Since we're already talking about something that's beyond our capability, might as well bring up that fact. I can see us doing that maybe 100 years from now, if we still desire precious metals.

[Anonymous No.4296161]

>gold asteroid

no. high density metals like noble metals do not persist long in mature solar systems. They coalesce or get picked up by the gravitational fields of gas giants.

in fact, many theories persist that there is a literal treasure trove of noble metals in the mantle and the core, having slowly sunk deeper into the earth's field as time went on.

Iron is dense, but its not a noble metal and it forms stable oxides and mineral compounds that decrease the density of its natural occurence. Gold, Platinum, palladium, Silver, etc. all tend be elemental in their natural forms, and thus incredibly dense (note: platinum and palladium and the like are typically found as impurities in gold deposits).

>crash safely into the ocean

a metorite the size of a car (at impact) would result in a multi hundred megaton explosion.

[Anonymous No.4296162]

>>4296148
Worse still, people (banks really) will have to hoard energy instead of gold bars or pieces of paper.

>>4296156
Then I suggest that you don't know what you're talking about. Do you have any idea of the pressures and temperatures we're talking about? "LOL future tech" doesn't cut it as an excuse here.

[Anonymous No.4296164]

>>4296162
>Worse still, people (banks really) will have to hoard energy instead of gold bars or pieces of paper.
Though really, right now it's all ones and zeroes in databases. Much more efficient.

[Anonymous No.4296175]

>>4296094

>30,000 tonnes

have fun completely devaluing gold on earth even if we manage to mine that. I mean, the only things I could see it being used for after that are scientific purposes, solar sails, reflectors, microchips

>implying silicon chips won't be outdated by the time we manage to mine

>just like Mansa Musa
>/sci/fags lrn2economics

[Anonymous No.4296181]

>>4296164

>energy

>ones and zeros

no.

there's a difference between information and energy.

[Anonymous No.4296187]

>>4296181
I'm talking about the current financial system, not a hypothetical one that uses "energy" as the currency.

Though, to be perfectly honest, it would be exactly like the gold standard, but with banks hoarding energy. Which is stupid.

[EK !EKFQOBUFnQ No.4296190]

we need a monetary standard based on philosophical thinking
>that feel when we will never be post-post-currency

[Anonymous No.4296196]

Rather than greed based currency, there should be just a way to give people what they need and share between people. Like if a farmer needs a tv, and a tv maker needs food, they can trade.

[Anonymous No.4296199]

>>4296196

[EK !EKFQOBUFnQ No.4296202]

>>4296196
that's called bartering and is based on greed. way to be a bronze-age faggot

[Anonymous No.4296204]

>>4296196
It's called barter. Which is a hugely inefficient pain in the ass. And leads to money as a solution.

Of course, you know all that. Brilliant post!

[Anonymous No.4296205]

Mad, my idea wasn't that we MINE the asteroid, it's that we chop it up, wrap it up, launch it down, pick it up, break it down, refine it up, and PROFIT.

[Anonymous No.4296209]

>>4296204
>>4296202
well what if everyone took all the stuff they produced and put it in one place (theoretically) and then took their share of everything that was there?

[EK !EKFQOBUFnQ No.4296211]

>>4296205
it's official; we need a slap-chop for asteroids

[Anonymous No.4296218]

>>4296209
How do we determine who gets what share? And if we can determine shares, why stick everything in one place at all?

[EK !EKFQOBUFnQ No.4296219]

>>4296209
because stealing, just like in any large-scale communal system

[Anonymous No.4296221]

>>4296196

So, I can trade 1500kg of potatoes for a Pagani Zonda?
Sign me up!

[Anonymous No.4296226]

>>4296209
How old are you?

>>4296211
Fantastic.

[Anonymous No.4296233]

>>4296094
>unlimited resources in space
>still want all the shiny rocks for himself

ISHYGDDT

[Anonymous No.4296235]

>>4296218
everyone gets an equal share
>>4296219
kick them out of the society and dont let them back in
>>4296226
36

[Anonymous No.4296243]

>>4296235

So, I give 20 apples and get the same "value" as a guy that gives a TV?

[Anonymous No.4296244]

>>4296235
>everyone gets an equal share
Freeloading and parasitism everywhere. We tried that back in Jamestown for a while, shit didn't fly.

[Anonymous No.4296250]

>>4296244
kick out people who freeload

>>4296243
everyone contributes the same effort
everyone gets equal share of every single thing produced

[Anonymous No.4296251]

>>4296250
>kick out people who freeload
How is this to be determined?

[Anonymous No.4296253]

>>4296250
But people aren't the same so people won't contribute the same effort.

There's no way to equalize a system like this.

[M No.4296256]

>>4296162
First, I'm not incorrect in stating that there's enough gold in the Earth to cover the surface of the planet to a depth of about 2 feet.

Second, if we have a strong need for gold and other precious metals, the core of the Earth will have plenty of material.

Finally, this entire thread is based on fantasy and just as I can't guarantee we'll be able to go down that deep in the future, you sure as hell can't guarantee the opposite. If you really think you can predict the technologies we will or will not have 100 or more years from now, you're the one who has no idea what they're talking about.

[Anonymous No.4296257]

>>4296250

What happens if I don't like apples? Why should I get a share of them?
Also, how can you attribute an "effort" value to a product? What about quality of products? There are 10 different types of apples, do all of them "cost" the same?

[Anonymous No.4296259]

>>4296251
>>4296250
Even more importantly, who decides what people should work on? If they decide themselves, how do you measure whether they are contributing "enough"? If they don't decide themselves... you get a command economy controlled by the Party, where everyone is equal and some are more equal than others.

[Anonymous No.4296260]

>>4296205
>>4296211
>MFW

[Anonymous No.4296265]

>>4296256
>Finally, this entire thread is based on fantasy
No, got to /x/ or /tg/ or something if you want fantasy.

> If you really think you can predict the technologies we will or will not have 100 or more years from now, you're the one who has no idea what they're talking about.
Yep, I figured you'd say "future tech LOL". You don't have a goddamn clue.

[Anonymous No.4296273]

Instead of crashing it into the ocean, just use a 3rd world country. A lot of the infrastructure for mining gold is in Africa anyway.

[Anonymous No.4296276]

>>4296273
If you landed it on land, much of it would braek away or vaporize on impact.

[M No.4296288]

>>4296265
Then tell the OP to remove the thread.

Many of the technologies discussed in this thread do not exist or may never exist, but are nonetheless science-related and belong here. Look at how many posts in /sci/ discuss singularity, wormholes, FTL travel, destroying stars and planets...etc. You must be new here or just a troll.

[EK !EKFQOBUFnQ No.4296293]

>>4296273
we'll be in a great mood all day cause we're gonna be smacking asteroids into our third-world troubles all day with the slap chop

[Anonymous No.4296295]

>>4296205


We know. Problem is that the size of the chunks safe enough to land on earth would be:

1) very small, small enough to make the process extremely difficult.

2) very difficult to crack a big asteroid into such small pieces


we are talking 3 ton chunks. 3 tons of solid rock is pretty small. its the size of maybe a 5 foot cube of rock. Imagine those pictures you have seen of mining operations that remove literally mountains of rock in order to find industrial quantities of usable ore.

such a rock slammed into the earth at orbital velocity would release about 120 tons of TNT equivalent, so not quite as big as a small nuclear explosion.

just on the limit of realistic safety limits.

Any bigger and you are moving into the realm of explosions that are nuclear in terms of their scale of energy release.

then, when you realize that you would need to bombard the earth with literally MILLIONS of rocks this size (yes, mining operations move millions of tons of rock to find usable quantities of ore), you would realize that it would be like setting off millions of extremely large conventional explosions all over the earth.

[Anonymous No.4296297]

>>4296288
>Many of the technologies discussed in this thread do not exist or may never exist, but are nonetheless science-related and belong here.
Uh, no. They are all firmly grounded in what is not only possible in theory, but what is likely to be feasible within the century (asteroid mining, that is).

Going to the core of the Earth is not one of those things is all I'm saying. It's possible in theory, but ridiculously infeasible. No foreseeable technology would allow us to send anything to the core.

[Anonymous No.4296299]

>>4296276
But then we wouldn't be killing any Africans.

[Anonymous No.4296300]

OP, what are tsunamis and how do they work?

[M No.4296337]

>>4296297

There's high temperature, pressure, and it would be difficult to track location. Drilling would require some new technologies and new materials perhaps.

One proposed idea is to split the Earth's crust at a location in which it's thin using a nuclear bomb. Encase a probe in molten iron and send it into the mantle. In weeks, it will sink down into the Earth's core. Or, drill to the mantle release a similar probe. Modulated acoustic waves would be used to communicate with it.

[Anonymous No.4296342]

>>4296300
Not OP, but tsunami's are caused most often by seismic activity in the oceans and travel around 400-600 miles per hour.

[Anonymous No.4296348]

>>4296295
>such a rock slammed into the earth at orbital velocity would release about 120 tons of TNT equivalent, so not quite as big as a small nuclear explosion.
Thats why I wanted the pieces to have heat shielding and to land in the ocean.

[Anonymous No.4296364]

You don't need automated mining tech
Just send up a spaceship tug, it latches on and pushes a small asteroid into high earth orbit
Then you send up another craft to deorbit the asteroid to a preplanned location
Process it on earth, not in space

^
This is NASA theory btw

[Anonymous No.4296370]

>>4296337
Any material even theorized to exist would be randomized at the pressures and temperatures in question. Sorry. No machine that we can even dream about at this point could survive.

The Core was a shitty movie BTW.

[Anonymous No.4296384]

>>4296370
Actually, now that I think about it, iron is solid again at the intense pressures at the core. Maybe something could not be randomized...

The molten part would screw you over probably though.

[valjean !!4SOyPF0IuOv No.4296394]

>>4296348
>dat tsunami

[M No.4296398]

>>4296370
Diamond anvil cells routinely squeeze materials at pressures equal to those found at the core. I'm also not talking about the very center of the Earth necessarily.

I'd have to do more research, but the probe could possibly be made of diamond.

[Anonymous No.4296403]

>>4296398
Temperature would screw you over. But you gave me an idea, see
>>4296384

[Anonymous No.4296415]

>>4296123
>gold
>corrode via contact with water

Wait, what?

>>4296162
>will have to hoard energy

Fuel, rather. Though that could still be held in a federal reserve and the banks could operate as they already do.

[Anonymous No.4296421]

>>4296415
Yes, the energy has to have a storage mechanism.

But it's still wasteful, just as the gold standard causing people to hoard gold bars is wasteful. Except with an "energy" standard, what you hoard is far more intrinsically important, and so the waste is more damaging.

[Anonymous No.4296423]

>>4296149
madsci,
the ocean is really really f*ckin scary down there.

that's really the only thing I have against you. I like shallow water and all but once it starts getting dark and cold and wet I get weak knees

[M No.4296446]

>>4296403

Look at this:

http://www.gizmag.com/new-superhard-form-of-carbon/20145/

That would probably survive in the outer core, which is as far as you'd want to go anyway because it's still liquid more or less.

[M No.4296455]

Diamond's melting point is about 3500 degrees C if I remember correctly. This is at atmospheric pressure. As pressure increases, the melting point of a material increases as well.

[Anonymous No.4296483]

>>4296455
>>4296446
Interesting.

I may have to do a back-of-the-envelope calculation here. It's well over 300 GPa at the edge of the inner core (liquid region still) and well over 5000 C...

[Anonymous No.4296489]

>>4296483
>able to withstand 1.3 million times normal atmospheric pressure in one direction while confined under a pressure of 600,000 times atmospheric levels in another direction.
Aw, damn. 300 GPa is nearly 3 million atmospheres.

Getting within an factor of 5, though.

[Anonymous No.4296493]

>>4296135
Strong?
No, a new abundance of gold drops the value, suddenly and precipitously.
Worse if it is speculated to be routine.

Things that are valuable because they are hard to get (gemstones, rare minerals) necessarily get cheaper if there is a glut.

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.4296497]

>>4296423

>the ocean is really really f*ckin scary down there.

>that's really the only thing I have against you. I like shallow water and all but once it starts getting dark and cold and wet I get weak knees

Actually I fully agree. But that's the allure. The ocean has it all; Serene beauty in the shallows, and abject terror in the depths. Some people like that. They want to be scared, want to risk their lives to glimpse the worst evolution has to offer and return to tell the tale.

We've dominated nature to the extent that it's hard to feel sincerely vulnerable to it anyplace else. It's the last frontier on Earth that we struggle to reach, survive within and learn about. And it's the last place on Earth that still manages to keep secrets from us, at least for now.

[Anonymous No.4296506]

>>4296149
Not really; they are using the word 'colony' because it's provocative.
It is an entirely inappropriate use of the word; the projects are little more than expensive, longer-term camping.

[Anonymous No.4296510]

>>4296497
In lots of ways, the deep ocean is more hostile than space.

In space ships, the only pressure differential is between the interior of your spaceship and the vacuum outside, which is generally about 1 atmosphere.

At the bottom of the ocean? Hoo boy...
Let's just say the pressure gradient across your hull is much, much higher.

[Anonymous No.4296523]

>>4296156
it's not about 'precious' in terms of 'just for investment and jewelry;
these have practical uses and there are many that are desired for more industries but left out because of their expense.

[Anonymous No.4296543]

>>4296209
That is communism; it is a great idea, except there is always someone (or many people)
trying to get a little extra,
trying to make their life a bit better than the neighbor,
or trying to hoard.
Or lying to avoid their share of work.
Or... you can imagine so much.

[Anonymous No.4296553]

>>4296221
See here?
Vast, enormous, selfish and clueless greed.
No need for it, nothing even to do with it, just outright lust for something, probably more for it's rareness than for it's innate value or use.

That's why you can't start a commune system easily, and it's why they eventually have to fail; people are hugely flawed.
Especially Zonda-guy

[Anonymous No.4296573]

>>4296295
This is just the argument that shows why smelting is necessary in space (where it may also be easier and less dangerous).

It should have been assumed, anyway, because we wouldn't want to have to move the asteroid to Earth in original form, just the bits we want.

And, I disagree with the 'multi-megaton' claim.

[Lunatic !!IE/X7lbCDOY No.4296672]

>>4296094
>>What was the name of that near object that people claimed had 30,000 tonnes of gold in it?
For the most part this describe any metallic asteroid.

>>4296295
>>such a rock slammed into the earth at orbital velocity would release about 120 tons of TNT equivalent
and if this energy is released over a long time period, it's not an explosion.
>>3 tons
That's a bit low, I think some space capsules have weighed more than that.

Given that the space shuttle masses 104 tons it is reasonable to assume that at the very least you could reenter 104 tons.

>>millions of tons of rock
well, M-type asteroids are for the most part nickel iron. And no, not iron ore, but iron. As in you wouldn't need to refine it.

>>4296337
ah, the old send a probe in a sea of molten iron to the core proposal. That's very different than drilling to the core, as it's a one way trip. Drilling to the core with current drilling speeds would take a very long time.

Plus, the mantle is molten, so you can't really make a hole in it.

[M No.4296710]

>>4296483
I can't find much info on the pressure in the outer core though. Say the middle of it. 200 GPa range?

[Anonymous No.4296720]

>>4296672
It's bad science fiction but...tracking the probe you get it to a volcano and gt out from there?

[Lunatic !!IE/X7lbCDOY No.4296768]

>>4296720
You can't get the probe back, because it's sinking in a huge blob of molten iron.

[M No.4296777]

>>4296773
Please stop.

[Anonymous No.4296773]

>>4296768
Then you'd need to attach a propulsion system to the molten iron.

[Anonymous No.4296916]

collide asteroids into the earth

how could this go wrong?

[Anonymous No.4296987]

>>4296573
I didn't know you guys had commie trolls here.

I thought only /pol/ got commie trolls.

[Anonymous No.4297089]

>>4296672
You know there is a big difference returning something with giant parachutes or with wings.

I was iffy supporting the idea of ablative shields for the payloads; i can't see attaching wings, carriers, or parachutes to each one at all.

[Anonymous No.4297105]

>>4297089
I thought ablative shielding would work because it would be easy to ship up and be auto-assembled.
That, combined with an ocean landing, would insure the payload to remain in hopefully one piece.

[Anonymous No.4297110]

>>4296720
it's bad science fiction for a lots of reasons.
You can't get the probe to survive,
you can't get it to go far,
you certainly can't get it thousands of miles,
you can't get a signal to or from it, so
you cannot control it,
and we don't even have vague maps of volcano structure for the ones we know well, like Kilauea.

So what was the purpose of having a probe go deep, again? To gather useful minerals we couldn't find, from a place we can't go or recover from, in a vehicle we can't build?

[Anonymous No.4297119]

>>4296987
That was mine;
How is it communist?
How was it trolling?

[Anonymous No.4297128]

>>4297110
>So what was the purpose of having a probe go deep, again?
To prove the theory of the nature of the earth's structure.
We've done a lot of seismology, but sending down a magma equivalent of a radiosond will make things a lot more certain.

[Anonymous No.4297162]

>>4297119
oh sorry, I meant to link to


>>4296196

[M No.4297184]

>>4297110
Please don't confuse him with me.

[Anonymous No.4297309]

>>4297128
Oh, you're certainly right there.
I'll bet a lot of scientists could list a top ten list of sites within a minute.
And then have a wish list of sensors or samples wanted, too.

[Anonymous No.4297706]

No need to go to space for gold (maybe rare earths though), plenty of deposits left to be discovered and more that are becoming economical to mine again.

>Gold grades of up to 20.8 g/t and copper grades of up to 37.7% have been confirmed in assay results from seafloor drilling at the Nautilus Minerals Inc.

>video: http://video.mining.com/videos/2553c0/nautilus_minerals_-_solwara_1,_papua_new_guinea.aspx