/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.4592810]

Sup /sci/
It's happening.

>The company will overlay two critical sectors – space exploration and natural resources – to add trillions of dollars to the global GDP. This innovative start-up will create a new industry and a new definition of ‘natural resources’.

Several billionaires are backing them.

http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/mimssbits/27776/

[Anonymous No.4592819]

I don't really get this, it's very far from being economical, probably at least 30 years, is there a benefit in declaring intent?
So if someone else wants to do it in the future when it becomes economical you could have a way to prevent it through legal action?

They back something like this that's so far away and don't back SENS for example.

[Anonymous No.4592826]

>exploration of the Earth
I don't really get this, it's very far from being economical, probably at least 30 years, is there a benefit in declaring intent?
So if someone else wants to do it in the future when it becomes economical you could have a way to prevent it through legal action?

They back something like this that's so far away and don't back CHURCH for example.

>basic research
I don't really get this, it's very far from being economical, probably at least 30 years, is there a benefit in declaring intent?
So if someone else wants to do it in the future when it becomes economical you could have a way to prevent it through legal action?

They back something like this that's so far away and don't back BANKS for example.

>going outside
I don't really get this, it's very far from being economical, probably at least 30 years, is there a benefit in declaring intent?
So if someone else wants to do it in the future when it becomes economical you could have a way to prevent it through legal action?

They back something like this that's so far away and don't back PILLOWS for example.

[Anonymous No.4592831]

>>4592819
how about you shut your uneducated mouth, and see what happens.

[Anonymous No.4592834]

>>4592819
>I don't really get this, it's very far from being economical, probably at least 30 years

It will probably be economical long before that that, don't underestimate what a private company can do with massive funding.

Also being the firsrt in the market can be very significant. Say that in ten years that some ripoff start to notice that "oh hey, there's money in space mining". What do they do then? Start their own company that's lagging ten years behind?

Also, high value elments such as gold and platinum will rapidly drop in price once an extraterrestial flow of them is established, this means that the first miners have a great advantage in getting their return of investment and money for further operations.

It's also not just about being able to sell gold for jewlery and whatnot back on earth. Valuable metals are valuable not just because of their shininess but also because of their industrial applications.

[Anonymous No.4592865]

> prevent it through legal action?
And how would you ever do that really? You can't claim space to be your private posession.

[Anonymous No.4592866]

>>4592826
>>4592831

yeah speding billions on mining some shit that we already have here on the Earth, and the only difference is the cost of digging it out, and by cost I mean the energy requirements.

To make asteroid mining economical energy must be pretty close to free, unless they know something we don't, this has no chance of working.

Contrast that with a chance of practical immortality, and you might see the problem.

[Gilgamesh !!JNVkU2/omZB No.4592876]

>>4592819
SENS is another kettle of fish entirely because the FDA actively jams up any attempt at therapeutic life extension.

[Anonymous No.4592886]

As for the economical bit, someone quipped that even a low grade asteroid have a higher gold content than high value ores in the crust.

An asteroid roughly spherical with 100 meter radius would have a volume of 4 million cubic meters. Assuming an average density of a conservative 2000kg/m^3 it would weight 8 million tonnes.

Assuming the gold content is on par with decent gold ore on earth (10ppm) it would contain 83 tonnes of gold. At todays gold price, that's worth 4 billion dollars, for only the gold.

[Anonymous No.4592891]

It begins.

[Anonymous No.4592893]

>>4592866
>To make asteroid mining economical energy must be pretty close to free

You might've heard of sunlight.

[Anonymous No.4592903]

>>4592865

Nations have nuclear weapons, anti-air missiles, armies and police. They can do whatever the hell they please, unless the public gets upset.

[Anonymous No.4592907]

>>4592903
The prospect of dying in thermonuclear war is scary not just for the public but politicians too.

The second you violate the treaty for putting weapons and military in orbit you're inviting a pretty awful shitstorm.

[Anonymous No.4592909]

>>4592893
Infrastructure, nigga. THAT stuff isn't free. Sure, the sunlight is free (always present without human effort), but all the stuff for gathering, storing, transforming, etc. all that energy is not.

[Anonymous No.4592916]

I will eat my hat if this is even remotely economical.

But if there is anything worth wasting money on, it is space mining.

[Anonymous No.4592917]

>>4592886

>it would weight 8 million tonnes.

*8 billion tonnes

[Anonymous No.4592920]

>>4592909
So first it's energy and now it's infrastructure.
I think the real problem is generalizations and pessimism! It will never work because it will never work or something along that line.

Of course, only that it will work and will be totally awsome.

[Anonymous No.4592930]

>>4592917
8 billion kgs or 8 million tonnes.

[Anonymous No.4592939]

>>4592920
You really just don't fucking get it, do you?

If I spend a ten million dollars for materials and labor to build infrastructure for space-based solar power and the whole system has to be rebuilt every 50 years, I've got to charged enough for the power to recover my costs. I only generate so much power in those 50 years, and so the power is not free. THAT IS WHY THE POWER IS NOT FREE.

People who bring up concerns are not trying to crush your dreams. YOU should be the one dealing with these issues if you want space industries to happen!

[Anonymous No.4592958]

Serious now. I want to enlist. I want to go in to space. ;_;

[Anonymous No.4592959]

>>4592939
>build infrastructure for space-based solar power

What are you talking about?

Would you construct PV panels in space and try to lease it to miners or are you into power beaming or what the fuck?

If space mining costs 10 times as much for electric power and 50 times as much for transport, but have a profit of 100 times that on earth you're still running a profit.

[Anonymous No.4592960]

There is only one economic case for off-planet mining: off-planet industry. It is really, really, REALLY expensive to get stuff off the earth, transport it to a particular place in the solar system, and have it function reliably after that multi-year journey. The only way that this is remotely cost-effective is if the material mined stays out of our gravity well, thereby avoiding future expensive launches. That is why ISRU fuel generation is what should be researched. That is the low hanging fruit, since fuel will always be needed and doesn't require also figuring out off-planet manufacturing techniques.

TL;DR: there's fuel in them thar asteroids!

[Anonymous No.4592972]

>>4592959
>have a profit of 100 times that on earth
You have to be competitive.

If your minimum selling price to recoup your costs are higher than the going market price for power, you're fucked, and should never have started the project without checking the math.

Power is power. There's nothing special about space-power that would get people to pay more per KWh.

[Anonymous No.4592981]

>>4592972
Wait, scratch what I said about power. I see what you are saying now - you're talking about mining, not commercial power generation. I should say the going price for your product - the minerals - would be higher because of your energy costs (which come from the infrastructure requirements).

Having to generate your own power just ups the costs for you, and in a bad way. In the near future what we need is more power, not more materials.

[Anonymous No.4592988]

I think its a valiant yet futile effort.

Engine technology is not yet to the point where it will be feasible to mine asteroids and have a competing price. Now, if they find some rare mineral that can only occur there, then that's a different story.

[Anonymous No.4592995]

>>4592972
Since when the fuck did this turn to circle around power generation?

It's off world mining for minerals, elements, massive stuff.

And even if you end up with little of value(oh except for gold and platinum and similar) to ship to earth you've got one big fucking advantage: You have the material in space already, and factoring in launchcosts it means you could sell gravel for $300/kg and anyone in need of in-space gravel would gladly buy from you as opposed to launching it.

Also fuel, water.

[Anonymous No.4592997]

Time for the Space Elevator

[Anonymous No.4593000]

I would love to see this money being spent on fusion power, that's something that the world needs urgently.

[Anonymous No.4593002]

>>4592995
Sorry about the misunderstanding.

If it's for space-based industries, then yes, you're right. Anyone who pays the huge costs to get off-planet will have then have a strong competitive advantage in supplying demands that are also off-planet.

Problem is.... what off-planet demand? How does this even get started if there are no off-planet people or projects that to buy the materials?

I personally love the idea of starting a race of autonomous machines on the moon, but it's not exactly a solid business plan.

[Anonymous No.4593003]

It's space solar you fuckwits

[Anonymous No.4593006]

>>4593003
How do you know?

[Anonymous No.4593007]

>>4593000
Last estimate I heard is that our fusion research is budget-limited. As in, lack of funds is slowing things down. The figure they suggest is that we're $80B away from commercial fusion. But our current budgets mean that's about 40 years away. If budgets were higher it would be sooner, though it's also true that an $80B check wouldn't get it done next year either.

http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/12/04/11/0435231/mit-fusion-researchers-answer-your-questions

[Anonymous No.4593009]

>>4592981
>Having to generate your own power just ups the costs for you, and in a bad way. In the near future what we need is more power, not more materials.

Being able to manufacture low efficiency solar panels in situ in space is a very old concept, and in space you're not limited by weather, night or space or gravity. A solar panel array the size of ten football fields that operate at maximum efficiency(which of course may be just 2-4%) around the clock is quite reasonable.

But of course, for starters, you could just make a parabolic polished steel mirror out of base metals for your thermal needs(for smelting and such).

[Anonymous No.4593011]

>>4593007
>40 years away

God fucking dammit. I'll be 60 by then.

[Anonymous No.4593013]

>>4593009
Oh, this is doable, certainly.

I'm just trying to see where this is financially feasible. How can we turn a profit? Competing with industries that also exist on-planet for supplying on-planet demand is a non-starter. It would have to supplying off-planet demand (there is none ATM) or doing things that can't be done on-planet (microgravity stuff, but there's no clear target here. It would have to be something that is in great demand, but essentially can't be manufactured outside of microgravity.)

[Anonymous No.4593015]

>>4593011
Hopefully you'll see things change when gas hits $10 a gallon. I'm just hoping this happens ASAP and due to rising demand from China and India (demand growing faster than supply), and not because we actually hit peak oil (supply rate going down).

[Anonymous No.4593018]

>>4593009
Solar thermal in equatorial desert environments like the Sahara already gets 60% this much efficiency out of solar panels. Is the expense of constructing and maintaining a space platform for the same worth the other 40%? The only difficulty is transporting the electricity from where panels are efficient to where people live... and that's one that's just as difficult (if not MORE so) in orbit.

[Anonymous No.4593030]

>>4592810
Oh putain oh putain oh putain oh putain oh putain oh putain oh putain oh putain oh putain oh putain oh putain oh putain oh putain oh putain oh putain oh putain oh putain oh putain oh putain oh putain.

[Anonymous No.4593040]

>>4593018
I was thinking for your own in-space power demands primarily, later it might be feasiable to build a microwave emitter and tranport it to earth.

As for 60% in sahara. That's the absolute peak rating. Add night, which you can never get away from while on earth and the value is immideatly cut in half. It's also for thermal energy which is a low grade energy.

[Anonymous No.4593047]

>>4593040
No, the atmosphere doesn't eat that much sunlight. Sitting in the Sahara during the day gives you access to just as much energy as sitting in a geosynchronous orbit... and solar thermal is currently more efficient than photovoltaic panels. Plus it allows you to continue to generate once the sun goes down since your superheated fluid stays hot enough to run turbines for hours and is still warm enough to add efficiency to your startup the following morning.

The asteroid belt, on the other hand, is almost 3 times as far away from the sun as the Earth is, meaning that there's a little more than one eighth the sunlight available for harvesting.

[Anonymous No.4593054]

>>4593015
I got so ticked off I emailed the President. I'm being serious.

[Anonymous No.4593058]

>launch a few simple refinery-miners into orbit
>have them construct bulk parts for solar shades and reflectors
>send a ship with more complex parts and people for assembly
>they consolidate and insulate a mined asteroid for living space
>use the fleet of solar reflectors to ensure constant daylight at a predesignated point groundside
>send down resources
>groundside, build a solar powerplant taking advantage of the constant light
>build an electrodynamically propped space cannon that uses electricity from the plant for operations
>sell cheap access to space
>expand operations
>100 years later the inner system is fully industrialized with fledgling colonies on several bodies

[Anonymous No.4593059]

in order to bring asteroid on Earth you have to reach them, accelerate them, make theyr speed match rotation speed of earth, make them land/slice them and make them land.

to reach them you have to launch a spacecraft:
it might be costy but you can use that spacecraft many time without having to land it.
if space elevator then cost is very low, if not you'll might need several asteroids in order to gain.

move them: i can't think of a good way to do that. solar panel + thruster and lot of time. what if we find an asteroid with gas IN it, bomb it, gas expansion accelerate it ( then additional thruster correct trajectory). remember that they are more far from the sun than the earth---> they have gravitational potential energy---> once they move a little the sun can accelerate them. the journey will still take years; even if the spaceship doesn't need to land ( only repair and gass fill) how many asteroids will we need in order pay the 1st launch cost and all the fucking solar panels? classic shuttling of massive spaceship cost billions; space elevator would really help.

make them land: asteroids meet Earth at controlled speed( we have to start from the right speed asteroids and guide it with low acceleration thruster for months) ( we have to insert asteroid in our orbit).
to land them there are 2 routes: space elevator( shit, we'll even gain energy!) or parachute. a big one.

well since spaceship gonna cost(lot) more if we want it to be able to work for more than 1 journey i think the best idea is do only 1 journey and bring back home the bigger fish in the sea. we'll make it orbit around Earth, slice it off and serve with parachutes WHAT COULD POSSIBLY GO WRONG?

[Anonymous No.4593064]

>>4593047
>No, the atmosphere doesn't eat that much sunlight.
But 12 hours of night do.

Geosynchronous nights are a lot shorter.

>and solar thermal is currently more efficient than photovoltaic panels
You mean heliostat power tower plants or somesuch. Yes well, they are rather neat.

>The asteroid belt
There's numerous near earth asteroids to mine, no need to fly all over the solar system.

[Anonymous No.4593069]

>>add trillions of dollars to the global GDP

Somehow I think it'll be just like the USA right now where there's a huge amount of money in the economy but only a small number of people have it.

It all amounts to nothing if the average person's wages don't go up, the inflation rate doesn't goes down, and the price of goods doesn't go down.

[Anonymous No.4593073]

>>4593064
No, I'm talking about parabolic trough with superheated fluids. Electricity is generated roughly 16 hours a day because the fluids stay hot enough to operate the steam turbines for hours after the sun has gone down. Night time (and the hours of low-angle sunlight the precede and follow it) is why it's 60% as efficient instead of 100%.

[I'm not you !u98ItQCQ1I No.4593089]

>>4592834
>It will probably be economical long before that that, don't underestimate what a private company can do with massive funding.
Doable does not equate to economical. Thirty years seems like a safe assumption as to when the mining of asteroids will be doable since that's about the time the fourth generation of spacecraft will be coming out (the space shuttle being the second generation). Space mining won't be economical until terrestrial mineral resources are diminished enough.

[Anonymous No.4593093]

>>4593073
I don't think you understand how power and power generation works.

To start with, there's no such thing as 100% efficient power generation. You always have a loss due to turbine efficiency, radiative and convective heat losses and whatever else.

When it comes to capturing sunlight you measure your total sun-capturing area. and compare it to the solar irradiance value. If 1000w hits the ground per square meter, and you have one square meter of light capturing surface, yet your electric output only reads 600W, then you've got 60% efficiency. And if everything is optimal and whatnot then that 600W is your peak value too.(although i guess in this case due to thermal storage, the value is adjusted based on post-sundown operational hours)
You very seldomly average the total production over a longer period and give it as efficiency per day on average(usually because the number is pitifully low, german PV rates in at 3% or so if you do)

As for operating after sundown: you're only using stored energy, there's no additional solar influx and that heat have simply accumulated during the day, it's beneficial to be able to use it past sundown as people still demand electricity, it does however not, and can not operate at any power level comparable to a similar plant that would be getting sun around the clock. The latter will always produce more energy.

[Anonymous No.4593426]

There is one reason and one reason only as to why wpace colonization will happen.

It's because in space no one can hear Carl loving a dolphin.

[Anonymous No.4593622]

>>4592886
>>4592939
>one asteroid gets you a few billion dollars
>worrying about paying a few million every fifty years
You're the one telling someone else what to do with their money, find the numbers that prove your argument.

[Anonymous No.4593643]

>>4593622
10 million is a gross underestimate.

[Anonymous No.4593671]

To the people arguing about economics, Thats the reason that multiple billionairs are investing in this. It requires a pretty massive start investment, and will probably run at a massive loss for years. But the long terms gains will be great.

[Anonymous No.4593681]

>>4593671
Try decades. For this to be economical it would require a revolution in space launch and spacecraft manufacturing. This project does not have the resources for either. It may be backed by billionaires but that doesn't mean they have all that money to spend.

[Anonymous No.4593687]

>>4593093
Not that guy, but you're a little cynical on your numbers. Modern PV is about 13-17% efficient (with possible multiplicative jumps in efficiency if fresnel lens stuff pans out--some rather dubious claims exist of getting 500% efficiency increases, but even a 50% jump would be awesome) and you can further increase that by around 40ish% by using a good 2 axis tracking system. Most commercial inverters get around the mid 70% efficiency rates.

Insolation is the key factor to how much solar a given location will be able to create--it's generally measured in kWh/m^2/day, and the rating of a PV panel/array is how many kW it is supposed to produce at 1 kWh/m^2/day, so if you've got a 1MW system on a day where you get 2 kWh/m^2/day, you'll produce 1540kWh of electricity (1000*.7*2).

Not saying you're incorrect because the other person is being hopelessly naive about power production, just wanted to throw up some real numbers.

[Anonymous No.4593736]

>>4593681

People who get their own net worth into the billions generally don't do so because they're shitty investors.

They obviously know more about this than you do and if they thought it was a guaranteed loss for decades, as you seem to, they wouldn't do it.

So stop.

[Anonymous No.4593788]

>>4593736
So bill gates thinks he's turn a profit from his child vaccination program.
No, sometimes people do things because they want to.

[Anonymous No.4593795]

>>4592988

Rare earth metals, bro. They're needed for a lot technologies but can't be recycled (without going to the bottom of the ocean to look for them).

[Anonymous No.4593807]

China has 95% of 'rare earth' materials. We know they're limited, we know they're increasingly in demand for use in advanced technology and we know to secure our resource demands we must start ASAP to avoid serious shortages and economic conflicts in the future.

We have the technology, we can do this but it will take a a very long time with huge investments to develop the new technology and processes.

Do not underestimate the scale and importance of this mission, it is critical to our survival. Godspeed, I hope to see you on the other side.

[Anonymous No.4593833]

>>4593687
>2 kWh/m^2/day.

And in space, that value is something along the line of 31kWh/m^2/day if you're sitting in a optimal orbital position, a bit less if you're suffering geostationary nights.

Which means that a 2% solar PV in space generates more power per day than a 25% PV in a northern country where 2kWh/m2/day sounds like a reasonable average annual value.

A 2% solar PV can probably be manufacted from meteor dust, or brought along in flexible thin-film rolls and unrolled straight out into the microgravity enviroment for a few hundred meters, kept in place with a steel wire or somesuch.

[Anonymous No.4593837]

>>4593788
>comparing a charity with an investment plan
>implying you know more about a subject than a professional because you read some Wikipedia page

If a company is drilling the moon, it's because they expect returns. If they realistically expect returns, it's because they've hired or asked dozens/hundreds of top flight specialists...

[Anonymous No.4593839]

>>4593807
>China has 95% of 'rare earth' materials.
China produce them becaused enviromental regulation and shortsightedness lead to closing of most other mines.

[Anonymous No.4593967]

>>4593839
>implying that's a bad thing

[Anonymous No.4593979]

>>4593837
We have no idea what their intentions are.
It could just be a demonstration in which case it would be charity.
It could just be tech development to cash in on the IP in which case it would not expedite asteroid mining.

We don't know what their intentions are.

[Anonymous No.4593989]

>>4593807
lolwat

Did you ever read beyond the headlines? In literally every article about this topic I've read, even on derp-tier sites like NYTimes, they always say "rare earths aren't actually rare, China just mines most of them because we'd rather let them do it"

Ever since the bullshit they pulled a year (or so) ago, other countries have started working on re-opening their rare earth mines.

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.4594001]

>>4593989
>they always say "rare earths aren't actually rare, China just mines most of them because we'd rather let them do it"

They are however very spread out in the crust and only concentrated together on the ocean floor, hence recent programs to mine those deposits. The higher concentration/grade of those deposits makes the extra effort of retrieving them from the deep sea economical.

http://www.nautilusminerals.com/s/Home.asp
http://www.neptuneminerals.com/

[Anonymous No.4594056]

So lets back the fuck up and analyze this from another point of view

EVEN IF THE COMPANY FAILS, they might develop technology on
>cost efficient space flight, takeoff and avionics
>mineral contents of asteroids
>solar system mapping
>aerospace manufacturing

All of that will have some value and may be sold, and even if the company does go bankrupt and fails, remember, there are billionaires behind that, and I'm assuming that when you have a few billions, you can blow one or two in space and still be a fucking billionaire, so why not?
Seriously. Why the fuck not?

And even if that is stupid, imagine the benefit to mankind, the children that will be inspired to go study the sciences and be an astronaut, the money that will go into the economy, and the sheer motivational effect on humanity.

Unless you want to bring weapons to space, any effort to do anything up there is welcome.

[Anonymous No.4594060]

>>4594001
Fuck yeah, undersea mining saving the day.

>Nautilus delivered several key achievements during the year, with the highlights being:

>Mining Lease ML154 (the area containing Solwara 1) granted by the PNG government for subsea production in the Bismarck Sea
>Agreement to form a mining joint venture with the State of PNG for the Solwara 1 project
>Agreement to form a vessel joint venture with Harren & Partner to own and operate a production support vessel
>Nautilus awarded exploration tenements in the Eastern Pacific and Fiji
>C$98.1 million raised in private placement of common shares
>Increased mineral resources at Solwara 1 and a declared maiden inferred resource at nearby Solwara 12
>Continued progress and development advances for the Solwara 1 project

Unfortunately they're still a ways off from starting mining and getting new minerals on the market, but it's quite impressive regardless.
With 70% of the surface covered in water, undersea mining might actually become the primary source of minerals in the long term.

[Anonymous No.4594071]

>>4594056
>Mining asteroids without weapons
Enjoy your mynocks

[Anonymous No.4594101]

>>4594001

>implying untested undersea mining won't fuck up deep sea ecosystems

>dumping mining sediment back into the water

[Anonymous No.4594120]

>>4594101
>implying it will without researching anything
http://www.nautilusminerals.com/s/Projects-Environment.asp

[Anonymous No.4594130]

Outer space and undersea,
live together in perfect harmony.

Submarines in space.

[Anonymous No.4594148]

>>4594101
>pump the mineral-rich layer right from under the surface silt with with a flexible hose that's inserted through the silt and then run around under it with minimal disruption of the top layers
>separate the needed materials
>pump the tailings back under the top layer with a similar flexible hose

Sure, test-mining should be done, but anyway.

[Anonymous No.4594161]

>>4594120

>Propaganda

Mining is VERY noisy even with slow cutters. Vibrations can travel really far and disturb creatures not in the immediate area.

Making too much of a human footprint in the ocean is a bad idea. Land has people, oceans have fish, it's a nice balance.

[Anonymous No.4594169]

>>4594148

How do we determine exactly what pump is required and the nature of the material we want to gather and process?

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.4594175]

>>4594130
>Outer space and undersea,
live together in perfect harmony.

>Submarines in space.

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.4594183]

>>4594161

>Mining is VERY noisy even with slow cutters. Vibrations can travel really far and disturb creatures not in the immediate area.

How does that harm them?

>Making too much of a human footprint in the ocean is a bad idea. Land has people, oceans have fish, it's a nice balance.

Motion denied. B)

[Anonymous No.4594199]

>>4594183

If humans inhabited the oceans we will see a substantial rise in human-fish related sexual rape crimes.

I don't see how you can be in support of this.

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.4594223]

>>4594199

>"If humans inhabited the oceans we will see a substantial rise in human-fish related sexual rape crimes."

Don't worry, we're well aware of Carl's 'activities' and our best men are on the case.

[Anonymous No.4594234]

>>4594223
But dolphins aren't fishs.

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.4594237]

>>4594234

I don't think anyone wants to fuck fish. I hope not. Don't correct me if I'm wrong.

[Anonymous No.4594247]

>>4594237
...okay.

[Anonymous No.4594260]

>>4592819
>>4592826
Why are there economists and business people on /sci/? You guys are everything wrong with society, greedy, shortsighted, unwilling to take risks for the greater good.

Seriously, this isn't a joke, GET THE FUCK OUT.
Reported for not science.

[Anonymous No.4594264]

>>4592819
>>4592939
Money? This is what you faggots are concerned about? How about resources? This wealth based economy is shit. When are we getting the resource based economy?

[Anonymous No.4594266]

>>4594260
You don't actually know what an economist is do you?

[Anonymous No.4594272]

>>4594264
>When are we getting the resource based economy?
We'll get there.
The best being that it's capitalism who will make it happen.
Not enough investment in automation for my taste, but it's happening.

[Anonymous No.4594274]

>>4594260
>>4594264
You're at about twelve, we need you at about four.

[Anonymous No.4594279]

>>4594272
Guess what is the problem? The under/uneducated blue collar faggots.
They have always been holding back progress because ZOMG I DESERVE A JERB.

[Anonymous No.4594281]

>>4594274
My mad level is well over 20 bro.

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.4594284]

Preserving the human species in the long run may, in fact, not be economical. At least not the initial stage, building self sufficient offworld colonies.

But we are not Ferengi. Or Randroids. The "If it isn't profitable it shouldn't be done" mantra will lead to our extinction, and we should be able to recognize this and occasionally do the ambitious, uneconomical things necessary to avert that extinction.

If we don't, we deserve what we get.

[Anonymous No.4594290]

>>4594284
I couldn't have put it better tripfriend.

[Anonymous No.4594291]

>>4594279
see >>4594274

>>4594281
Yes, and you are trying to get a rather civilized discussion to devolve into inane namecalling if you continue like that.

[Anonymous No.4594293]

>>4594284
>If we don't, we deserve what we get.
We sure do our best to deserve it.

[Anonymous No.4594318]

>>4594293
Barring the far right political and religious backlash, it doesn't really look so bad.
Even the US republicans are waking up to the fact that bad shit is going to go down if they let their pet crocodile run rampant much longer.

Keep your eye on the prize and your chin up.

[Anonymous No.4594345]

I agree Resources are what keep wealth from becoming worthless

[Anonymous No.4595462]

People keep going about this the wrong way in their minds.

When you have a presence in space with high-tech production capability, you have already made profit.

Sending a satellite into space costs quite a lot. So why build it groundside?

Send the specs to the orbiting facility and only send up the parts they're unable to produce.

Ideally this could mean that you would only produce the software on Earth, which would be uploaded to the satellite that was fully made in space, with only the orbital positioning spending fuel.

[Anonymous No.4595472]

This imbues me with a new hope for the human race... but...


...How exactly do they plan to get to the asteroids in a timely fashion?

[Anonymous No.4595504]

>>4595472
There are asteroids near earth. No need to go all the way to the Belt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-Earth_object#Near-Earth_asteroids

[Anonymous No.4595515]

dumshits

space is a vacuum

all the good stuff is under ground

[Anonymous No.4595557]

>>4595515
Ah, but if you dig deep enough (past approx. 12,858 kilometers) you WILL be in space.

[Anonymous No.4595838]

I'm 12 and what is this

[Anonymous No.4595844]

Has anyone read OP's book? Is it worth reading? I'm thinking of checking it out from the library.

[Anonymous No.4595870]

>>4595844
>Is it worth reading?
yeah.

[Anonymous No.4596103]

>>4595462 When you have a presence in space with high-tech production capability, you have already made profit.

>>4595462 Sending a satellite into space costs quite a lot. So why build it groundside?

Have you any idea how much processing there needs to be done to go from raw material to fully workable product? Doing it in space is so far away it's not even worth talking about.

Makes more sense to make rocket fuel with renewable energy sources.

[Anonymous No.4596122]

>>4596103
>Floating molten metals
oh god, orbital foundry's will be a bitch

[sage No.4596140]

>>4596122
But imagine the unique conditions in space, imagine the purity of the stuff we forge in space, because of the pure vaccum condition.

[Anonymous No.4596169]

>>4596103
I actually do know, as I've worked in a several different jobs, working in a few fields. I know exactly what it takes to turn many different materials from ore to finished products.

And like I said, in the beginning, you can import the most complex parts from earth, until the industrialization reaches the level when that is no longer needed.

Try reading the whole post and thinking about it before posting. It prevents you from going off half-cocked like that.

[Anonymous No.4596186]

>>4596103
>Makes more sense to make rocket fuel with renewable energy sources.

Okay, give me a rocket that can launch a 20 meter wide glass lens.
Actually, before that, give me a place on earth where i can make that without having it deform under its own weight.

[Anonymous No.4596478]

>>4595870
I hope so. I requested it for pick up later.

[Anonymous No.4596483]

>>4596186
Yeah, you're right, let's just replicate Earth's entire industrial infrastructure in space so that we can manufacture those lenses in zero gravity. This will surely end up being cheaper than putting solar thermal reactors in the desert.

[Anonymous No.4596531]

>>4596186

A glass lense is one of the easiest things to accomplish in space. Heat glass + rotation = almost perfect lense.

This thread is about asteroid mining and the processes involved with it. They are much more intensive and complicated.

[Anonymous No.4596546]

Damn, this thread is shit.

[Anonymous No.4596554]

Oh silly rich people, you cannot force change any more than your buying a 200k car will one day make it so that car only costs 30k.

It doesn't fucking matter how much money they sink into this. Where are they going to get their highly qualified people? India?

Just because batman fights crime, doesn't mean that rich people can solve problems.

[Anonymous No.4596556]

>>4596140

>forging metal in a vaccuum

>"How long will it take to cool the ingots?" "About a month"

Oh yeah. that sounds profitable.

[Anonymous No.4596562]

>>4596556
It works for food (aging).

[Anonymous No.4596566]

>>4596562

it'd be cheaper to have vaccums on earth for that.

Not to mention that actually putting food in a vaccuum would freeze-dry it in a few hours.

[Anonymous No.4596573]

>>4596566
I think that the autistic retard with no theory of mind is trying to say that because we tolerate waiting for months for food to grow on farms, it shouldn't be inconvenient for wait months for smelting products to cool.

[Anonymous No.4596576]

Step 1) Build billion dollar rockets.
Step 2) Spend approximately 1 million in fuel and launch to get it into space.
Step 3) ????
Step 4) Profit

[Anonymous No.4596578]

>these billionaires don't give a shit about humanity or the future or even if this business fails.

They just figure that since they're rich, they can do anything, so they want to visit space like a tourist, and then they can die happy.

If they really cared they would sink this money into some sort of space academy that inspires and educates the next generation of people that would otherwise be lost in the tides of economic recession.

But all that? That might take more time than these bruce waynes want to wait. They don't want a better future for us, they just want it for themselves.

[Anonymous No.4596581]

>>4596578
What good is it to inspire people to be part of a space program that doesn't exist?

[Anonymous No.4596583]

Oh man I hope it's true and starts happening! It'd make me feel like I was living in the phoochir.

[Anonymous No.4596588]

>>4596581

More good than a space industry with no skilled workers to man it?

>let's just hire unskilled workers, in space,

>what could possibly go wrong!

[Anonymous No.4596609]

I'm a little suspicious. Why are they holding off on the announcement? They've made an announcement about the announcement. The only reason I can think of is to build up levels of hype about it. Kinda like NASA when they made it sound like they'd found alien life.

I predict that either it will be nothing to do with space mining, and is something far more mundane, or (my most likely option, imo) it's an attempt to get loads of people to invest in a project, because it has James Cameron and a bunch of billionaires tied to it, so it MUST be an awesome investment opportunity, and their concept sounds really cool! but never actually goes anywhere. I hope I'm wrong, but I suspect I'm not.

[Anonymous No.4596614]

>>4596588
Are you trolling, or do you honestly not know that we have more than enough skilled workers who would jump at the chance to work in space?

[Anonymous No.4596620]

I get the feeling that on /sci/ you could describe an internal combustion engine and people would blather on about how it could never work. What a ridiculous concept it is to use explosions to turn a metal shaft.. god you're so stupid and naive - go have fun blowing yourself up!

[Anonymous No.4596622]

>>4596588
Because nobody intelligent would want to work in space.
Hell, tons of qualified people would want to work in space so bad that they'd do it for living expenses only.

[Anonymous No.4596624]

>>4596620
The major difference in this case being, we don't currently fly off to space for mining missions... burden of proof is on you, sir.

[Anonymous No.4596629]

>>4596614

Let's see, according to the government, about 5,658 people graduated with a science degree and another 5000 with a math degree in 2008-2009.

>Business: 168,375
>healthcare: 62,620
>teachers: 178,564

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d10/tables/dt10_283.asp?referrer=list

Now, spread that ten thousand people around to several thousand different businesses and industries from their local level to the global level.

How many people are left for this?

So we output about 10,000 skilled people per year, while we put out 300k unkilled people per year.

Nope. No problems here. Seems we have an abundant workforce. my bad.

[Anonymous No.4596633]

>>4596620

Alternatively you could have someone say that they found a new form of FTL using tinfoil and microwaves and someone would come on and defend it and say that the detractors don't understand science or are super christians.

[Anonymous No.4596638]

>>4596629
>about 5,658 people graduated with a science degree and another 5000 with a math degree in 2008-2009
Damn, I had figured that it would be alot higher than that.

[Anonymous No.4596645]

>>4596638

fun fact: globally, there are only about 6000 astrophysicists in total.

Humanity is woefully underprepared for what we're all expecting to "just happen" in the next 50 years despite this generation being raised by call of duty and facebook and youtube.

It's like i keep saying, technology cannot save us from ourselves.

[Anonymous No.4596647]

>>4596629
>>4596638
Nevermind, those are masters degrees, not to mention that he ignored agricultural, biological, and psychological sciences when he counted those numbers.

[Anonymous No.4596649]

>>4596638
>>4596643
>>4596645
This is just plain pathetic. 5000 out of a few million people in the US? Are humans as a species just that fucking dumb?

[Anonymous No.4596650]

What is it's stock symbol?
I am going to invest everything I have into this, I am young and therefore will be about 40 or so when it becomes really really big.

Habiong the opportunity to invest in space exploration in its infancy is like having the opportunity to buy your own planet for pennies.

[Anonymous No.4596653]

>>4596643

Do you really think we'll get to a point in the next 50 years where we're really growing crops and raising livestock in space stations? Those positions do not require physical presence in space. The actual construction and operation of the station by essential crew that each have two skills that they excel at.

I guess if they're really desperate they'll accept bachelor's degrees. But again, that drives up the chance of public backlash-inducing mega-accidents.

[Anonymous No.4596668]

>>4596653
Growing crops, possibly as we do already do plant science in space. You also left out engineers and plenty of astronauts have engineering degrees.

[Anonymous No.4596671]

It's not like we have anything for those scientists to do except languish in academia. Training an order of magnitude more for some non-existent space industry isn't going to help anyone.

[Anonymous No.4596682]

you people are also forgetting the implications of this.
Once they get to the asteroid belt, they can literally stay there and mine practically infinate materials. (there is mroe iron in the asteroid belt than there is mass of the earth)

From this single venture, it will significantly reduce material costs on earth, meaning building bigger and better things would become a reality. They would be able to construct ships in space to transport workers and eventually set up space stations to house them.

Where there is industry there will be cities. This is a fact. oNCE THIS BECOMES VIABLE, THE WORKERS WILL DEMAND COMMERCE IN SPACE AND RECREATION,. bEFORE YOU KNOW IT YOU WILL HAVE A COLONY SHIP AND A TRADE ROUTE.

(SORRY CAPS BUT NOT RETYPING)

from this point, this new company will essentially have limitless opportunities. They could easily begin a colony on mars (closer to the asteroid field) - this would actually be sxtremnely likely.

Once cities begin to spring up on mars, people will want to move there from earth to experience lucrative new business of space exploration. Companies will begin making viable space-transporters and very expensive personal craft.
(they are designing a space elevator right now in japan, a different company)
This will result in space elevators being built on both mars and earth, resulting in a spaceport and thus a ''planetary hub'' to begin commercialization of space.

We will then seek a way to pull valuable gasses for fuel from jupiter and will then begin a vast solar colonization and industralization project, beginning our ''space-faring'' age.

before too long, after seeing the benefits of exploring our system, the new ''beach-head'' will be to attempt to get to the nearest star and with our newfound wealth, expertise and technologies, we will begin developing research for viable FTL transport.

what you are lookign at is the birth of the space age people.

[Anonymous No.4596694]

>>4596668

I chose not to include engineers because it did not specify what their specialty was. most would probably require extensive retraining to really be competent with orbital construction.

We grow plants as experiments to how they act in microgravity, not as sustenance or an oxygen source.

One fully grown human being requires about 400 large plants to have enough oxygen per hour to function adequately and perform tasks. 400 fucking 30 leaf big plants. How much space would that take?


http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/newton/askasci/1993/biology/bio027.htm

Multiply by a crew of at least 50 and you've got a real problem with volume, not to mention the water the damn things would consume.

It's going to be a looooooonnnng time before we start farming in space.

[Anonymous No.4596711]

>>4596682

>what you are lookign at is the birth of the space age people.

We already have a space age. We're in the information/digital age now.

[Anonymous No.4596708]

>>4596682

Oh look. It's the Classic Science Fiction Future.

Doesn't all of that say that we'll have flying cars and fusion power in 1995?

How does this sci-fi future seem any more likely than jules verne and personal airships?

[Anonymous No.4596720]

>>4596682

>what you are lookign at is the birth of the space age people.

No, it's quite the opposite. Just because bruce wayne can fight crime doesn't mean that phoenix jones can.

[Anonymous No.4596752]

>>4596708
>implying anything I described there is wrong or overestimating anything.

when this venture happens, as it will happen, the company will become unbelievable rich and make materials on earth extremely cheap. Especially ''rare earths''
This will lead to a lot of technological developments in both materials and computing.

Naturally they will HAVE to have workers in space... so they WILL build some sort of space-station near the asteroid field while they mine it.

They will have availiable construction materials so the station will presumable be very large and unlike our current space stations, they do not need to make it light or small. They would be able to build an extremely large metal ship/construction.

As more workers come from earth to the mining array, they will want to be able to stop off midway and create a more viable community than just a spacestation. The direct link between the belt and us is mars and it is readily applicable to build on. The materials can be transported from the belt at almost no cost, therefore construction would be very cheap.

as we are RIGHT NOW develop[ing a space elevator, it is easily assumable that one will be constructed in this timeframe on earth and eventually on mars.

the time period is debatable, but due to the wealth of the company it is very easy to assume they will venture to the other planets in search of more materials (helium 3 for example)

[Anonymous No.4596761]

>>4596752

You're acting like all of this is some immutable destiny.

You're telling me that all the best and brightest are going to work on the extraterrestrial equivalent of an oil rig but only a million times more dangerous while causing irreparable harm to their bones and vascular system and making them sleep in a sack on the wall in an environment that several badass astronauts get sick from?

Oh yeah. no. totally reasonable. I forgot that we have an immutable destiny as written in 1950's fiction.

[Anonymous No.4596788]

>>4596752

You can't make money in space as long as the space treaty exists. All that metal up there legally belongs to everyone, so you couldn't sell it.

Even if that gets overturned, you still cannot have a nation-state in space. so whatever rules or laws The Company wants, you'll have to live with.

Hah, i'll really get a kick out of it if they spread propaganda everywhere making space life seem really cool, but once you get there you barely make enough spacebucks to survive, much less get dropped back to earth.

somehow i doubt that they'll have artificial gravity via centrifuge or magic, so if you're in space too long, you're there forever, or be a cripple on earth.

That's something important that most people don't seem to know, if you go to space and live there, you will be marooned by your bones and heart getting weak as fuck.

That's a big turn off to the people with real lives, like actual skilled workers.

[Anonymous No.4596809]

>>4596761
Frontiers and the opportunities therein have attracted talented people before.

It's probably not going to happen the way we imagine right now. And it's certainly not inevitable that it happens.

But the inescapable thing is that if we don't do it and utilize the technology in a big way, the human species will consume and economize itself to extinction.

[Anonymous No.4596944]

>>4596788
>cerntrifugal motion
>regular ghealth checks
>regular excercise

you retaded? problems as simple as that can be overcome fucking easily. That is also the reason to colonise the moon, to have a ''shore leave'' after several weeks/months in space mining

>>4596761
you show hardly and logic or intelligence. I wouldn't be surprised if u were religious.

they are doing this project, thats what this thread is fucking about you moron. It's not imaginary. I don't see your point.

[Anonymous No.4596991]

>>4596944
Let's keep it civil.
The economizers irk me to no end too, but I don't want this thread to devolve into namecalling either.

[Anonymous No.4597007]

>You're telling me that all the best and brightest are going to work on the extraterrestrial equivalent of an oil rig

Robotics robotics robotics robotics.
Working on space mining can be sitting in a lab and designing space mining system and robots.
Or
Sitting in front of a screen sending some commands up to the machinery.

As soon as we leave LEO manned spaceflight is pretty much out of the question.

Now as long as the money is there you'll find excellent talent. Even if there's no great excess of the money engineers and scientists will be lured due to prestige and the challenges involved. They may not become millionaires but if the millions required to build space mining bots are there, they will come.
100% sure.

[Anonymous No.4597008]

>>4596991
claiming stupid things is stupid and therefore need pointing out.

The economics are also sound. Once you get over the massive cost of setting up this situation and launching everything into space, they will essentially have access to almost limitless resources (regarding what is availiable compared to earth)
This will vastly reduce material prices on earth allowing us to make use of rare-earths in more availiabkle technolopgy and allowing us to make more use of materials manufacturing such as carbon nanotubes... reducing the cost to the point where we can readily construct most buildings out of them allowing for a much greater varaiety and scope of buildings to be constructed.

Humans have a very shortisghted approach to things, liker how they think they can last forever using fossil fuels or somehow last forever on this one planet when our population will exceed 11 billion by 2050.

[Anonymous No.4597014]

>>4597007
liek this guy said.
If this becomes a reality, once I finish my physics -engineering degree I will be the first to sign up to frontier mining.

[Anonymous No.4597022]

not going to read the thread, and I'm sure this has been said already-
but-

we aren't running low on any metals here on Earth. In fact we refrain from mining most types of metals to keep from saturating the market and killing prices.

it's like if we found a planet made of gold-
the first trip to harvest the planet might be profitable, but it would quickly become worthless.

[Anonymous No.4597055]

>>4597022
>we aren't running low on any metals here on Earth. In fact we refrain from mining most types of metals to keep from saturating the market and killing prices.

But your argument is flawed, for several reasons.
Firstly, there IS a finite ammount of materials on this planet. While there is a significant current abundance, the vast majority are inaccessable (under the mantle). Not only that, but vast mining would seriously scar the planet. Rare earths ARE infact rare.

Secondly, your idea that refraining from releasing materials keeps the price up IS true in concept, (see diamonds) but that is because people arwe primarily invested in these fields, meaning if the priced DID drop, they would lose the initial value. But what a lot of people don't see is that with lower prices comes a bigger market. If gold was sufficiently lowert in cost it could be used to line powerlines (being a superconductor) resulting in magnitudes greater ITC capabilities. This widespread use would be hugely profitable even if gold was 1/100th of the current price.

Having cheaper materials means we can build bigger and better things and use them more thuroughly throughout our technology. Allowing cheaper iron for example would allow us to vastly improve carbon nanotube producation makign it much cheaper. This would result in teh ability to make massive structures out of the material instead of having to use smaller, lower structures that take up more land.

[Anonymous No.4597083]

>>4597022
>worthless
Only in monetary terms. Gold would be immensely useful if it didn't get hoarded by every retard attracted to shiny baubles that ever lived.