Asteroid Mining

[Noncommunist]

Apparently, a US company lead by James Cameron and Google's top executives is now planning to mine some asteroids. Huge amounts of minerals can be found within the asteroids, some can even contain amounts of certain elements equivalent to all that we've ever mined on Earth. So this could dramatically change life if it works and some materials become extremely abundant. However, this will still be extremely difficult.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hBWmSiwsmFHXMYLuHdhOESC1e29A?docId=CNG.0377153363f317a1957edd3f66f6244b.411

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303513404577356190967904210.html

Any thoughts about it?

[Whacker]

No joke, my first thought was about those newspaper bits in Deus Ex that talk about the millions of casualties from the lunar miner orbiter crash.

[a completely inoffensive name]

It's more or less a pipe dream. This venture will cost in the tens of billions before they even start mining and the return from the investment might not be worth the cost depending on what they are mining. The biggest benefit will be the milestone for humanity in general to accomplish this and the ability to streamline the process to make it more affordable for future investors. I still say it should be done, but I don't think anyone should fool themselves into thinking that scarcity for certain resources is going to decrease anytime over the next few decades.


Oh, also they will need to develop a reusable ship like the space shuttle that can go back and forth from the asteroid to actually deliver the material to earth, unless they plan on putting it in a box and just shoving it towards earth.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Much more interesting than a moon base or sending someone to mars.

[HopAlongBunny]

Just listened to a CBC bit about it. Apparently no one doubts it is possible to do; the economics will certainly suck for the foreseeable future.

Fortunately, the investors seem more interested in demonstrating what is possible rather than making money. As the interview pointed out, rare earths are rare here, and often associated with areas thought to be "impact sites". If you can go to the source instead of waiting for it to land, rare earths become much less rare.

One thing they didn't mention is that the whole process could probably be best handled by robots.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Besides, didn't China buy up all the rare earth metals or something?

[a completely inoffensive name]

As the interview pointed out, rare earths are rare here, and often associated with areas thought to be "impact sites". If you can go to the source instead of waiting for it to land, rare earths become much less rare.


Actually rare earth's are not that rare. That's a misconception people have. The reason rare earth's seem rare is because the only country currently mining rare earth elements is china who is exercising their monopoly on the stuff to their benefit. According to the sources on the wikipedia page I am looking at, cerium has roughly the same abundance as copper.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Besides, didn't China buy up all the rare earth metals or something?

See my previous post.

[CBR]

Besides, didn't China buy up all the rare earth metals or something?
Dump the asteroids on China and make the metals less rare?

[rvg]

Asteroid mining should really pick up if we construct some processing facilities on the ISS. That way the entire process will be confined to outer space negating the huge costs of leaving and re-entering Earth.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Asteroid mining should really pick up if we construct some processing facilities on the ISS. That way the entire process will be confined to outer space negating the huge costs of leaving and re-entering Earth.

You still need to transport the final product to earth after processing, which means constant leaving and re-entering for the ship. So why bother putting the processing facility way up there for billions of dollars when it could be done for millions on earth?

[rvg]

You still need to transport the final product to earth after processing, which means constant leaving and re-entering for the ship. So why bother putting the processing facility way up there for billions of dollars when it could be done for millions on earth? To use it to expand the ISS itself.

[Major Robert Dump]

Well since we are gutting our space program in America because we can't manage our infinite money, someone has to carry the torch.

[HopAlongBunny]

To use it to expand the ISS itself.

Possible. A very starry-eyed view would be for processing/manufacturing in space for space related "infrastructure".

[rvg]

Possible. A very starry-eyed view would be for processing/manufacturing in space for space related "infrastructure".
Space rock can be used to create hull space. Lots of hull space, can't have too much of that. Besides, hauling a whole asteroid down to Earth is wasteful, considering that 95% of it is likely to be garbage as far as Earth is concerned, but in space all that garbage can come in handy. Now, if you managed to find an asteroid made of solid gold, then yeah, down to Earth it goes. Barring that, might as well maximize the usefulness of those rocks.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Space rock can be used to create hull space. Lots of hull space, can't have too much of that. Besides, hauling a whole asteroid down to Earth is wasteful, considering that 95% of it is likely to be garbage as far as Earth is concerned, but in space all that garbage can come in handy. Now, if you managed to find an asteroid made of solid gold, then yeah, down to Earth it goes. Barring that, might as well maximize the usefulness of those rocks.

Rock isn't really that useful for orbiting space stations. It would be difficult to construct the proper architecture that is required to provide protection against micro meteorites. Big thick slab walls are actually not that great for high speed collisions.

[rvg]

Rock isn't really that useful for orbiting space stations. It would be difficult to construct the proper architecture that is required to provide protection against micro meteorites. Big thick slab walls are actually not that great for high speed collisions.Rock has the advantage of being cheap and plentiful. Whatever damage occurs can be fixed with on hand materials.

[PanzerJaeger]

Well since we are gutting our space program in America because we can't manage our infinite money, someone has to carry the torch.

It is very interesting to watch private industry take over as government gets out of the space business. We will see how our space companies compete with China and India's space programs.

I would hope NASA could become an R&D clearing house to support these efforts, determining the feasibility of various proposals and passing out grants to promising ones. We should create a kind of space industrial complex, much like the military one that has produced some of our best technology. It is actually a pretty good model for developing very high cost, cutting edge tech.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Rock has the advantage of being cheap and plentiful. Whatever damage occurs can be fixed with on hand materials.

Not if the entire compartment gets destroyed every time a rock with the diameter of a dime hits it. Your notions of "cheap and plentiful" have no bearing on what needs to be done to survive space.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Even if this turns out to be a giant financial disaster, it will be important in advancing our extra-terrestrial capabilities. Sooner or later Humanity has to leave this rock, and its made a much harder goal because people are generally incapable (or unwilling) to look so far into the future.

Unless we somehow make a breakthrough in propulsion technology we won't be leaving the earth any time soon (~150yrs). Even if we had a ship that could constantly go 10% the speed of light, it would take nearly 2 days to reach Pluto.

[Noncommunist]

Unless we somehow make a breakthrough in propulsion technology we won't be leaving the earth any time soon (~150yrs). Even if we had a ship that could constantly go 10% the speed of light, it would take nearly 2 days to reach Pluto.

That said, we're still only a few days from the moon and a few months from Mars with everything we have now. So while the distances are certainly immense, I'd say that we could at least put a few bases down, perhaps get as far as our settlement of Antarctica.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

You're thinking small. If mankind is to endure for HUNDREDS of thousands of years, instead of the mere 10,000 or so years of written history we're at today, then we must find a way to go elsewhere. Its the ultimate holy grail of science and civilization. Staying on earth is like laying in your own coffin--sooner or later this planet won't be able to support life, whether its climate change, a rogue asteroid, nuclear war, or the sun burning out. Someone should be working on the route to space colonization at all times, in some capacity. Bravo to Cameron and Co. for having the fortitude to persue this in the face of blinding skepticism.

But if the time scale is hundreds of thousands of years then space colonization is not our most urgent problem--that would be ensuring nothing severe happens in the next couple hundred years.

But asteroid mining at least sounds like a reasonable project to restart the space age with...

[Sarmatian]

When this happens and when we figure out how to get energy for free (or extremely cheap), mankind will finally be able to live in abundance.

I believe our grandchildren will live in a such a world...

Here's to pioneers.

[gaelic cowboy]

There is not as much need for a reusable ship as you might think lads if humanity got serious about it we might build a space elevator.

It would be an enourmous project but the benefits would be massive if we could make it work, it will probably use some kind of carbon nanotube or the like and the killer app is the ability to send the ore down safely and cheaply from earth orbit.

Without it I would say asteroid mining is a pipe dream unless we can create some kind of cheap less polluting rocket, I would say though that a cheap less polluting rocket is even less likely than the space elevator.

[gaelic cowboy]

It is very interesting to watch private industry take over as government gets out of the space business. We will see how our space companies compete with China and India's space programs.

I would hope NASA could become an R&D clearing house to support these efforts, determining the feasibility of various proposals and passing out grants to promising ones. We should create a kind of space industrial complex, much like the military one that has produced some of our best technology. It is actually a pretty good model for developing very high cost, cutting edge tech.

One thing I would remind people about corporate space projects is the fact that there essentially rent seeking projects just like most millitary projects too. Thats not to say there are no benefits from rent seeking companies we can see that some have contributed to the security of the USA(but not all)

There will always be a need for some federal input most companies are not likely to want to study some aspects of it as there would be little or no return on investment. I expect the big push will be in attempting to harness solar energy out in space to be essentially beamed back to earth, the millitary applications of an essentially a free-ish energy source are huge.

Essentially were returning to an era simmilar to the early explorers who were funded by a mixture investors or the monarchs.

[gaelic cowboy]

One of the big ideas behind the asteroid mine deal is that they would be able to mind the asteroids for water and hydrogen--i.e. space-ship fuel. The largest hurdle facing space travel at the moment (aside from not being able to go fast enough to make interstellar travel practical) is the immense cost of getting the supplies (including fuel, water, and so forth) out of the Earth's gravity. These mines would be almost as good as a space elevator, since you'd be gathering the fuel in space and transporting it to other ships and satellites that are already in space, thus saving everyone a lot of money and time in the end.

The polluting rockets you're thinking of are such a big deal because they have to be used CONSTANTLY to break the earth's orbit every time we want to send something up there. Once your in space you don't need such elaborate methods of propulsion, at least not until we start looking at farther targets. The fuel provided by these mines would be renewable and cheap for things like the ISS and the countless satellites in orbit. All in all, a good launching point towards cost-effective space exploration.

I understand all that but our problem is that the ore has to come down eventually and in big enough quantities to make it useful. This is best achieved in my space elevator senario rather than using rockets of any kind be they poluting or not.


Of course that still does not mean a space elevator is even feasible, it's concievable allright but the technical details are so big I would say it would have to be a global project.

Failing all that we might build some sort of container that falls down from orbit with the decelaration slowed by simple parachutes, in order to bring down the cost we would probably have to make the container in orbit though. There is a danger though in sending worthwhile amounts down as we would be essentially firing asteroids to earth so it would require no mistakes.

[Whacker]

We've long had the technology and means to do stuff like asteroid mining. The problems center mainly around breaking new ground with the physics and mechanics of the actual activites, and the overall cost which is the biggest by far. Space is an extremely brutal, unforgiving environment for both man and machine. Extreme differences in temperatures, tons of dangerous/lethal levels of radiation, risks of collisions with other bodies, limitations on communications (speed of light, etc)... it goes on and on and on. It's certainly doable, but doing it in a cost-effective manner with "acceptable" levels of risk is something else entirely.

[rvg]

Not if the entire compartment gets destroyed every time a rock with the diameter of a dime hits it.
This is a non-issue. Current hulls provide no more protection than rock would, all that matters is how thick the hull can be made.


Your notions of "cheap and plentiful" have no bearing on what needs to be done to survive space.
Sure they do. Lack of building materials and huge costs associated with transporting them are major impediments. Asteroids can help alleviate that problem.

[a completely inoffensive name]

This is a non-issue. Current hulls provide no more protection than rock would, all that matters is how thick the hull can be made.That is simply not true and I am telling you that. Metals can be fabricated to have many multiple thin layers with space in between them. This may be better for micrometeorite protection because the impact usually liquifies the object that is crashing into the space station. The thin layer with gaps may ensure minimum damage because the liquified meteorite will not have the cohesion after the first few layers to puncture the other layers. This is something that simply can't be done with rock.

[rvg]

That is simply not true and I am telling you that. Metals can be fabricated to have many multiple thin layers with space in between them. This may be better for micrometeorite protection because the impact usually liquifies the object that is crashing into the space station. The thin layer with gaps may ensure minimum damage because the liquified meteorite will not have the cohesion after the first few layers to puncture the other layers. This is something that simply can't be done with rock.Asteroids contain a whole bunch of common metals, especially iron. That's the point of processing them in space, since Earth already has enough of iron.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Asteroids contain a whole bunch of common metals, especially iron. That's the point of processing them in space, since Earth already has enough of iron.Except the metallurgy is a bit more complex than just being slabs of iron. I think the main material is aluminum but I am not 100% sure about that, but I do know that trying to achieve such metallurgy in space is a great exercise in expensive distasters waiting to happen. Space only gives you one shot at survival. Our space age shuttles have blown up before they even entered space simply because they launched on a very cold day. The tolerances needed are difficult enough to engineer and test on earth, let alone a zero gravity environment.

[rvg]

Except the metallurgy is a bit more complex than just being slabs of iron.
Oh, I'm sure mistakes will be made along the way. The process does not need to involve humans though. The facility can be made fully robotic, which will also alleviate the need and the expenses of making it habitable.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Oh, I'm sure mistakes will be made along the way. The process does not need to involve humans though. The facility can be made fully robotic, which will also alleviate the need and the expenses of making it habitable.This sci-fi fantasy is sounding more idyllic by the minute. I'm glad when it comes to space people don't get bogged down by the practicallity of their ideas. It will make the public's disconnect with the achievements of private enterprise that much more palpable.

[rvg]

This sci-fi fantasy is sounding more idyllic by the minute. I'm glad when it comes to space people don't get bogged down by the practicallity of their ideas. It will make the public's disconnect with the achievements of private enterprise that much more palpable.

Space exploration in general has been a constant exercise in ignoring the naysayers and achieving things that supposedly "cannot be done". Nothing new really.

[Whacker]

Oh, I'm sure mistakes will be made along the way. The process does not need to involve humans though. The facility can be made fully robotic, which will also alleviate the need and the expenses of making it habitable.

Great idea in theory, really damn hard in practice. Electronics have to be extra hardened to survive space. Ironically most newer electronics probably wouldn't survive, the older stuff with larger pathways and circuitry are what lasts much longer. This is why the shuttles ran on old 486's.

Not saying it can't be done at all. But getting to something that'd probably survive the trip and function fine is going to be a real exercise.

[Strike For The South]

But....but...but SCIENCE

[Whacker]

But....but...but SCIENCE

http://wearscience.com/img450/kiss_the_cloner.gif (http://wearscience.com/img450/kiss_the_cloner.gif)

[rvg]

Great idea in theory, really damn hard in practice. Electronics have to be extra hardened to survive space. Ironically most newer electronics probably wouldn't survive, the older stuff with larger pathways and circuitry are what lasts much longer. This is why the shuttles ran on old 486's.

Not saying it can't be done at all. But getting to something that'd probably survive the trip and function fine is going to be a real exercise.

Cold welding is pretty much tailor made for zero-g vacuum environments.

[Kadagar_AV]

Someone was on this already, but it wasn't answered..

My first thought was to "shoot" whatever material you gained down to earth. Have a set area of sea, build hauling facilities around it, and then just send down packages as they come.

But yeah, would be rubbish if they missed and hit Tokyo. However, don't we have the tech to more or less make sure we wouldn't?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Space exploration in general has been a constant exercise in ignoring the naysayers and achieving things that supposedly "cannot be done". Nothing new really.

This is really laughable. The laws of physics don't bend to humanities will. Space exploration in general has been a constant exercise in doing our best despite hard-headed people like you telling Challenger to lift off because postponing the date would "look bad".

The technology isn't there yet and everyone talking about space elevators or factories in space when the best money can buy right now for the ISS are tubes just big enough for an American and Russian astronaut to move past each other.

Honestly, what a pathetic argument.

[rvg]

This is really laughable. The laws of physics don't bend to humanities will. Space exploration in general has been a constant exercise in doing our best...
If it's left to people like you, we'd still be trying to put the man into orbit.


The technology isn't there yet
That's what you think... you do think occasionally, right?


and everyone talking about space elevators or factories in space when the best money can buy right now for the ISS are tubes just big enough for an American and Russian astronaut to move past each other.
Lack of money does not equal lack of know-how. That bit should be self-explanatory.

[a completely inoffensive name]

If it's left to people like you, we'd still be trying to put the man into orbit.
Not really considering I said from the very beginning of this thread that we should still fund ventures such as the one OP posted. Just because I want to make sure human lives and money are not wasted doesn't mean I am not as "Rah rah rah! Human race!" as you.



That's what you think... you do think occasionally, right?
That's what I know. Here's a hint. If all these wondering things you talk about are anywhere in our grasp, where's all the investors lining up for this? Why is the one investment OP showed such a big deal? Because it is so far out there as a concept. Not due to people being negative nancies but because private industry has had a hard time merely catching up to NASA let alone being pioneers in their own right. Like I said, space is unforgiving.



Lack of money does not equal lack of know-how. That bit should be self-explanatory.

And michio kaku can talk on tv all he wants about warp drives going faster than light, but that doesn't mean the issue is a lack of money buddy.

[rvg]

Not really considering I said from the very beginning of this thread that we should still fund ventures such as the one OP posted. Just because I want to make sure human lives and money are not wasted doesn't mean I am not as "Rah rah rah! Human race!" as you. I'm not at all "Rah rah rah! Human race!" as you so eloquently put it. No need to be, as we have no competition. Nor do I advocate wasting money or lives.



That's what I know.
You do? Are you a rocket scientist or a space exploration expert? Barring a revelation from Jesus, what are your sources?


Here's a hint. If all these wondering things you talk about are anywhere in our grasp, where's all the investors lining up for this?
Here's an answer. Investors invest money to make money. They don't invest for the advancement of the human race, they invest to beef up their bottomline. Example: Spirit and Opportunity. Brilliantly executed project, lots of information gained. Financially -- complete disaster. If we were to wait for investors, that project would never happen. No money in it.



Why is the one investment OP showed such a big deal? Because it is so far out there as a concept. Not due to people being negative nancies but because private industry has had a hard time merely catching up to NASA let alone being pioneers in their own right. Like I said, space is unforgiving.Depending on private investment for space exploration is folly. That's why NASA is funded by taxpayers.



And michio kaku can talk on tv all he wants about warp drives going faster than light, but that doesn't mean the issue is a lack of money buddy.
Straw for the strawmen. Yes, more straw for the strawmen. Strawmen demand their straw.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I'm not at all "Rah rah rah! Human race!" as you so eloquently put it. No need to be, as we have no competition. Nor do I advocate wasting money or lives.
Then why put a factory in space made of crappy materials other than to say, we made a factory in space made of crappy materials? Space elevators for space stations that don't exist, robots working in zero gravity, all for some moon rock. If you are not doing it for the pride of the human race, then I am at a loss as to why you would want it at all?




You do? Are you a rocket scientist or a space exploration expert? Barring a revelation from Jesus, what are your sources?
This is the backroom, my ego is my source.



Here's an answer. Investors invest money to make money. They don't invest for the advancement of the human race, they invest to beef up their bottomline. Example: Spirit and Opportunity. Brilliantly executed project, lots of information gained. Financially -- complete disaster. If we were to wait for investors, that project would never happen. No money in it.

A perfect set up of an asteroid mining colony is one of the most profitable ventures ever if it is done successfully. Sending down ingots of elements that currently put choke holds on the cost of electronics would be a complete cash cow.



Depending on private investment for space exploration is folly. That's why NASA is funded by taxpayers.
Well if we want to be realistic now, I would have to point out that for the past few years NASA's budget has been taking a beating and we should not depend on public investment given our current political climate.



Straw for the strawmen. Yes, more straw for the strawmen. Strawmen demand their straw.

Highlight where I have strawman'd your argument please. I'm afraid I won't have enough money to keep this one fed with fresh straw if it isn't worthy.

[rvg]

Then why put a factory in space made of crappy materials other than to say, we made a factory in space made of crappy materials? Space elevators for space stations that don't exist, robots working in zero gravity, all for some moon rock. If you are not doing it for the pride of the human race, then I am at a loss as to why you would want it at all?Because it is very expensive to keep hauling building materials from Earth to the orbit. The "factory in space made of crappy materials" will be there to expand the ISS far beyond what would otherwise be undertaken due to costs. It's not about proving anything to anybody.


This is the backroom, my ego is my source.
Understandable, but at the same time unacceptable in an argument.



A perfect set up of an asteroid mining colony is one of the most profitable ventures ever if it is done successfully. Sending down ingots of elements that currently put choke holds on the cost of electronics would be a complete cash cow.The problem is that without an orbital processing facility you won't be sending down ingots. You'll be sending down tons of rock, some of which might actually be valuable. Or it might not. Kinda casts a shadow on the whole "cash cow" aspect.



Well if we want to be realistic now, I would have to point out that for the past few years NASA's budget has been taking a beating and we should not depend on public investment given our current political climate.
And I don't believe anyone was discussing specific dates in this thread. Only concepts and their feasibility.



Highlight where I have strawman'd your argument please. I'm afraid I won't have enough money to keep this one fed with fresh straw if it isn't worthy.
Certainly. I made an assertion that while we might lack funds, that doesn't mean we lack the know-how.
You brought up the example of this michio kaku fellow and his warp drive idea that at a glance contradicts Einstein's theory of relativity and will thus be laughed off as nonsense (easy to see why).
You are making a link between my statement (that we don't necessarily lack the know-how) with a supposed idea of a know-how(warp drives) because kaku's theory can be easily pounded into dust. In other words, you are creating an easily defeatable straw man, tying it to my statement (even though there's zero indication in my statement that I support the guy) and passing them as analogous, while they of course are not.

[rvg]

I hate to interject in this lovely little argument, but...
No competition that you know of. There are roughly one hundred billion stars in the galaxy, and just as many galaxies in the observable universe. The odds suggest that there is competition. And if there is other life out there, we surely aren't alone in consuming more resources than our lonely planet can reasonably supply. Colonization is a long-term goal that any civilization (presumably even alien ones) would see as the best way to protect their species against the inevitabilities of limited resources and limited time.
If I don't know that something exists, I have no reason to account for its existence.

[Ronin]

deep sea exploration, space exploration....are you having problems at home James? how bad do you want time away from the missus?

[Tellos Athenaios]

Great idea in theory, really damn hard in practice. Electronics have to be extra hardened to survive space. Ironically most newer electronics probably wouldn't survive, the older stuff with larger pathways and circuitry are what lasts much longer. This is why the shuttles ran on old 486's.

Wrong, modern electronics are a lot less fragile and temperamental than ye olde rubbish. CMOS > TTL > Valves. Electronics aren't the problem, power & heat management is. At the end of the day it takes far more computing grunt to run a mediocre OS than it does to navigate space.


Not saying it can't be done at all. But getting to something that'd probably survive the trip and function fine is going to be a real exercise.

The real exercise is ever getting the economics to work. Getting stuff back to planet Earth is comparatively trivial. Getting stuff off planet Earth at affordable costs per tonne, now that's a challenge. Project Orion style rockets don't count, you know they won't be allowed.

[Kadagar_AV]

We didn't have the tech to go to the moon when we decided to go to the moon.

Humanity is ******* awesome when it comes to reaching goals.

Only problem is that we set the wrong goals - "WE ARZ GONNA HAVZ DA BIGGEZT NUKEZ" *well done, now can we explore space?*

[gaelic cowboy]

Someone was on this already, but it wasn't answered..

My first thought was to "shoot" whatever material you gained down to earth. Have a set area of sea, build hauling facilities around it, and then just send down packages as they come.

But yeah, would be rubbish if they missed and hit Tokyo. However, don't we have the tech to more or less make sure we wouldn't?


The problem as I see it for just parachuting resources down is the fact we will need to parachute vast amounts down this would require lots and lots of containers to come down. The size would be limited by the safety we require of the landing basically It would not be advisable to parachute as much ore as say a supertanker down.

Could work but it would require that resource prices rise a bit something that will happen as we eat them up.


Also few people already talked about constructing and welding in zero-g to be honest I'm not sure how you would inspect a weld in zero-g. Ultrasound is out unless performed inside a fabrication facility and in an already high radiation enviroment X-rays could be out too. You couldnt use liquid inspection as it will just float away that leave only magnetic inspection but were probably not going to be welding materials that could be inspected by this.



That means were probably stuck with riveting for now as it could be tested probably in zero-g.

[Vladimir]

We didn't have the tech to go to the moon when we decided to go to the moon.

Humanity is ******* awesome when it comes to reaching goals.

Only problem is that we set the wrong goals - "WE ARZ GONNA HAVZ DA BIGGEZT NUKEZ" *well done, now can we explore space?*

CAN I HAZ SWEDISH FISH?

https://img841.imageshack.us/img841/457/candyswedishfish.jpg (https://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/841/candyswedishfish.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (https://imageshack.us)

In other words: What? :inquisitive:

[tibilicus]

Seems more like James Cameron's attempt to plug Avatar 2..

[Papewaio]

You could do sonic testing as long as the transmitter and receiver were attached to the object. The transmitter and receiver do not have to be in air to send sound waves, metal or soil will work as the medium too.

If you had 3 Olympic swimming pools full of gold you would have all the worlds gold. Some of the materials we use in modern electronics are of a similar rarity. Meaning that mining asteroids could be economically viable.

Costs for earth mines are amazing. Each tire on those giant trucks was $40k US a decade ago... So a single set of six tyres is a quarter of a million. Mines have heaps of these trucks to mine a couple of grams of gold per tonne of ore. Mining projects already run into the billions. The trucks are already being remote controlled.

Asteroids have several main types mainly carbon types and iron. Biggest issue would be water.

[Tellos Athenaios]

If you had 3 Olympic swimming pools full of gold you would have all the worlds gold.
Mined, perhaps. As you'll know there's lot's of gold in the ocean water. It's just not worth it to extract it.


Some of the materials we use in modern electronics are of a similar rarity. Meaning that mining asteroids could be economically viable.

Nope: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/11/02/recycling_your_high_tech_gear/

It'll be economically viable to mine the landfill sites before* it'll be viable to send tonnes of stuff into space and expect actual profits at anywhere near consumer level market prices.

* Depending on whether or not we find a new "magic" energy/power source to deliver both raw power and efficiency aplenty for broad industry applications, not just government research.

[HopAlongBunny]

The question that keeps coming up for me is: Why return anything to Earth?

If you can solve the problems surrounding processing and fabrication in space, the possibilities are staggering.

If you can construct something, you side-step the cost getting the damn thing "off" the Earth. This overcomes a lot of limitations on what can realistically be accomplished in space. I think it would be the first "baby-step" on actually using space for more than photo-ops and bragging rights.

[Beskar]

There is not as much need for a reusable ship as you might think lads if humanity got serious about it we might build a space elevator.

It would be an enourmous project but the benefits would be massive if we could make it work, it will probably use some kind of carbon nanotube or the like and the killer app is the ability to send the ore down safely and cheaply from earth orbit.

Without it I would say asteroid mining is a pipe dream unless we can create some kind of cheap less polluting rocket, I would say though that a cheap less polluting rocket is even less likely than the space elevator.

The problem is the requirements of the cable. They pretty much have everything except for having a cable strong enough to support it. The most promising is nano-tubes, but I cannot remember the precise figure, it was 2.1 (something) and the current strength at the time of filming was like 1.8 (something).

This was a while ago, but I am sure Brian Cox was involved.

[Papewaio]

The biggest problem I see with NASA is risk aversion. Take a look at the death rates in:
Setting up railways in the US ie Chinamans chance
Number of scientists & explorers who have died in extreme earth environments (mountains, poles etc)
Mining nowadays
Geophysicists death rate in low altitude aerial surveys... Altitude of 60m above ground in forested environments gives no room for error
General construction death rates
Car racing
Etc etc etc

Why have we set up a scientific and exploration group for space that's primary risk to astronauts not going into space is old age. Why do they have such a risk aversion that they are less risky then other areas of more mundane profit motivated earth bound exploration.

I'm not saying we should kill our astronauts, but I don't believe in risk free scenarios. I also believe you need to look at the total cost of a space program. How many non astronauts die due to normal accidents, add that to the cost per mission to figure out if going quicker may in fact save the overall human toll. End of the day inactivity means your staff will still die of old age, heart attacks, cancer or boredom. If they mean to achieve something than do so.

[gaelic cowboy]

You could do sonic testing as long as the transmitter and receiver were attached to the object. The transmitter and receiver do not have to be in air to send sound waves, metal or soil will work as the medium too.

Gah of course how did I miss that

but still I wouldnt wish it on my worst enemy cos the jury is out on welding in low to no gravity enviroments as far as I am aware.

One thing though if we mined for metals in asteroids then we may have to look at new pricing for resources. If resources become obviously not infinite but at least extremely plentiful then our economic model of trying to price the scarity of resources is gone.

In effect what does the idea of plenty have on the price of anything it's likely we would only use gold for electronics if we could all have it.

[gaelic cowboy]

The question that keeps coming up for me is: Why return anything to Earth?

If you can solve the problems surrounding processing and fabrication in space, the possibilities are staggering.

If you can construct something, you side-step the cost getting the damn thing "off" the Earth. This overcomes a lot of limitations on what can realistically be accomplished in space. I think it would be the first "baby-step" on actually using space for more than photo-ops and bragging rights.

because for the moment only the earth is a suitable enviroment for us at the current and projected population levels providing we can obtain these extra resources.

Mars and the Moon are not suitbale enviroments for long term human habitation and space stations dont fill the gap either.

[HopAlongBunny]

because for the moment only the earth is a suitable enviroment for us at the current and projected population levels providing we can obtain these extra resources.

Mars and the Moon are not suitbale enviroments for long term human habitation and space stations dont fill the gap either.

All true, but...

Bringing materials to Earth raises the question of ownership; I believe asteroid material would come under the same (or a similar) arrangement granted to Antarctica. As such, it is and remains, essentially international property.

[a completely inoffensive name]

All true, but...

Bringing materials to Earth raises the question of ownership; I believe asteroid material would come under the same (or a similar) arrangement granted to Antarctica. As such, it is and remains, essentially international property.

That won't last long though. If a mining company stakes a claim on an asteroid first, who is going to enforce any rules on them? There are no police or military forces in space.

When short distance space travel is possible, we are going to see a wild bonanza of exploitation and de facto property ownership without the approval of earth governments until that one treaty (I forget what it is called) that bans the militarization of space is repealed or ignored.

[Sarmatian]

That won't last long though. If a mining company stakes a claim on an asteroid first, who is going to enforce any rules on them? There are no police or military forces in space.


And what they're gonna do? Hold hands and sing on the asteroid? They need to sell those goods back on Earth.

[a completely inoffensive name]

And what they're gonna do? Hold hands and sing on the asteroid? They need to sell those goods back on Earth.

And what makes you think that just because governments put sanctions on the company that they won't find a buyer? What makes you think that special interests groups who could really use an Earth flush with Palladium won't lobby the government to let the wild, wild space alone?

[Sarmatian]

And what makes you think that just because governments put sanctions on the company that they won't find a buyer? What makes you think that special interests groups who could really use an Earth flush with Palladium won't lobby the government to let the wild, wild space alone?

This is very different than what you've said first. This implies that government(s) will sanction it in some way, shape or form and this...


That won't last long though. If a mining company stakes a claim on an asteroid first, who is going to enforce any rules on them? There are no police or military forces in space.


... implies that there is no way government(s) can do anything about it.


So, which is it?

Changing subjects mid-discussion just to appear right isn't a good idea.

[a completely inoffensive name]

This is very different than what you've said first. This implies that government(s) will sanction it in some way, shape or form and this...My position was that governments can't do anything to enforce rules in space, you implied that governments could just prevent operations on earth (the sale of the mining product). I am just saying that the incentive is for governments to not do that because there is too much demand for certain elements. So I am still saying that governments can't do anything, because the special interest groups that dictate US policy will stop the government from doing anything. Does that make more sense?
Changing subjects mid-discussion just to appear right isn't a good idea.Don't be such a negative nancy, it's all part of the fun.

[Whacker]

Wrong, modern electronics are a lot less fragile and temperamental than ye olde rubbish. CMOS > TTL > Valves. Electronics aren't the problem, power & heat management is. At the end of the day it takes far more computing grunt to run a mediocre OS than it does to navigate space.

Sorry, I'll listen to my two friends who are Aerospace Engineers and work at NASA in Houston over you mate, unless you're in that group. Power isn't a problem at all, that was solved ages ago. Heat is (relatively) easily dealt with by proper design, shielding, and flight management. Radiation and electromagnetic interference are what ruin electronics, why things need to be double or triple redundant, and why newer electronics are far more fragile than the older devices based on larger process methods.


The real exercise is ever getting the economics to work. Getting stuff back to planet Earth is comparatively trivial. Getting stuff off planet Earth at affordable costs per tonne, now that's a challenge. Project Orion style rockets don't count, you know they won't be allowed.

Depends on what it is you want to get back. Stuff like ore wouldn't be that hard since it doesn't need to "survive" in any particular form, it just needs to get back. Doing it in bulk and with reusable containers is another story.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Radiation and electromagnetic interference are what ruin electronics, why things need to be double or triple redundant, and why newer electronics are far more fragile than the older devices based on larger process methods.
What you are overlooking here, is that your 486 contains a trivial amount of electronics compared to say your current laptop/desktop CPU. The difference is a couple of
order of magnitude. So no wonder that a modern desktop CPU is more fragile than the 486 in a high radiation environment: there's more components to "go wrong". But the modern equivalent to the 486 isn't a desktop CPU.

Instead it's something you might find in hospital machines or wafer bakers. Those have much tighter EMI requirements than the 486 ever had. So why don't we use that, then, you ask? Because software written for the 486 won't run on that kit.

EDIT: I guess the more interesting point is that 486 was made with knowledge of materials and their EMI properties of the late 1980's. We have much improved alloys and processing methods to deal with EMI now.



Depends on what it is you want to get back. Stuff like ore wouldn't be that hard since it doesn't need to "survive" in any particular form, it just needs to get back. Doing it in bulk and with reusable containers is another story.

Eh you can't just crash land the stuff on Earth. Once the amount of stuff you crash land is in any way meaningful, you won't be allowed to crash land it. Like you say: reusable containers is the hard part. Not because reusable containers themselves are so hard, but because the weight of the reusable containers and the machinery to load them is going to be hard to justify. The problem is therefore in getting the economics of rocket payloads to tip towards bigger = better, because only then can rocket investments be recouped by upscaling mining operations and amortizing costs per tonne of ore brought back.

[Whacker]

What you are overlooking here, is that your 486 contains a trivial amount of electronics compared to say your current laptop/desktop CPU. The difference is a couple of
order of magnitude. So no wonder that a modern desktop CPU is more fragile than the 486 in a high radiation environment: there's more components to "go wrong". But the modern equivalent to the 486 isn't a desktop CPU.

Instead it's something you might find in hospital machines or wafer bakers. Those have much tighter EMI requirements than the 486 ever had. So why don't we use that, then, you ask? Because software written for the 486 won't run on that kit.

EDIT: I guess the more interesting point is that 486 was made with knowledge of materials and their EMI properties of the late 1980's. We have much improved alloys and processing methods to deal with EMI now.

We're sort of saying the same thing, and sort of not. (Relatively) Trivial construction is one of the big(ger) reasons why older electronics have higher survivability, the other is robustness of construction. It's really annoying to hear our parents or grandparents say it all the time, but the old adage "They don't build 'em like they used to" has some level of truth in this regard. Not all modern electronics are built with that "battlefield" survivability in mind, the minimum level of compliance is that FCC standard that basically states that they MUST accept interference as well as not give it. The last thing I'd add is that I'm not disagreeing with you, in that we could put the latest and greatest into space and have it work fine, provided it's built right. The "built right" part is what I was trying, perhaps poorly, to imply is the hardest and most expensive part by a long, long shot.




Eh you can't just crash land the stuff on Earth. Once the amount of stuff you crash land is in any way meaningful, you won't be allowed to crash land it. Like you say: reusable containers is the hard part. Not because reusable containers themselves are so hard, but because the weight of the reusable containers and the machinery to load them is going to be hard to justify. The problem is therefore in getting the economics of rocket payloads to tip towards bigger = better, because only then can rocket investments be recouped by upscaling mining operations and amortizing costs per tonne of ore brought back.

I for one am looking forward to the apocalyptic hail of dump truck sized, partially molten rare earth ores raining down on heavily populated urban centers!

[HopAlongBunny]

But still you are taking from one area where you have no claim and dumping it another area where you have no claim. It's not property, at best it would be salvage and therefore a free-for-all to scoop it up.

There are just too many jurisdictional issues to make it practical w/o a huge initiative to update/refine international law in this sphere. Not to mention that dumping stuff from orbit to earth is regulated and there are penalties for endangering life/property.

[lars573]

That won't last long though. If a mining company stakes a claim on an asteroid first, who is going to enforce any rules on them? There are no police or military forces in space.

When short distance space travel is possible, we are going to see a wild bonanza of exploitation and de facto property ownership without the approval of earth governments until that one treaty (I forget what it is called) that bans the militarization of space is repealed or ignored.
The outer space treaty. But it does say that any celestial bodies are free for exploration and use by all mankind. It basically prohibits weapons of mass destruction in orbit, and off world colonies.

Also it was written when putting 3 guys in orbit for a day cost billions.

[Vladimir]

If you havin' skyrim problems I feel bad for you son.. I dodged 99 arrows but my knee took one..

That's, really, horrible.

[gaelic cowboy]

But still you are taking from one area where you have no claim and dumping it another area where you have no claim. It's not property, at best it would be salvage and therefore a free-for-all to scoop it up.

There are just too many jurisdictional issues to make it practical w/o a huge initiative to update/refine international law in this sphere. Not to mention that dumping stuff from orbit to earth is regulated and there are penalties for endangering life/property.

Once it's landed it would be property though would it not if you happened to land it on your own property.

[lars573]

That's, really, horrible.
No horrible was when "then I took an arrow in the knee" was worked into an episode of NCIS.

[HopAlongBunny]

Once it's landed it would be property though would it not if you happened to land it on your own property.

I suppose. If it never leaves your hands it would be hard for others to "claim" it; ownership would likely be a legal challenge.

The problem is developing a re-entry vehicle of sufficient volume that can be reliably landed where you want it.

The solutions that need to be found are not just technical, they are also social/legal.

[Beskar]

Admittedly, the economics of the "reusable container" would be solved by the Space Elevator, which isn't currently in able to be created (we need stronger cord) but once that is done, then the issues of sending things up and re-entry would be "solved".

[a completely inoffensive name]

Admittedly, the economics of the "reusable container" would be solved by the Space Elevator, which isn't currently in able to be created (we need stronger cord) but once that is done, then the issues of sending things up and re-entry would be "solved".

You still have to deal with the energy usage issue.

[lars573]

Plasma rockets. Or as they're called on Star Trek, impulse engines.

[gaelic cowboy]

You still have to deal with the energy usage issue.

Never know seeing as it's reaching into orbit it might be able to power itself with some solar power

[Centurion1]

Could possibly use electro magnetic kinetic launchers when the technology advances further

[a completely inoffensive name]

Never know seeing as it's reaching into orbit it might be able to power itself with some solar powerSolar power is too inefficient at this point in time.

[Vladimir]

Solar power is too inefficient at this point in time.

I saw a while ago that the Dutch were working on a solar collector that collects energy from all visible wavelengths. Once that's done it will be a major breakthrough.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I saw a while ago that the Dutch were working on a solar collector that collects energy from all visible wavelengths. Once that's done it will be a major breakthrough.

There is already a solar collector that collects energy from all visible wavelengths.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b6/Solar_two.jpg


It's not all that much more economical than other methods of energy generation. If you are talking about photo voltaic cells then you got some problems. I am not an expert in the technology, but my understanding of it is that if you want a wider range of wavelengths to be absorbed you are going to need compounds that either absorb wider ranges or you are going to need multiple different compounds to each be turning the photons into excited electrons.

Obviously this problem is evident if we are talking about a world where the rare earths are held hostage by china. Also, it says nothing of its economics simply by being able to absorb the spectrum. What will matter is how efficiently it will do the job. Off the top of my head, I think commercial solar panels are...30% efficient? If we had solar panels that were 70-80% efficient that would suit our needs just fine for many applications without trying to branch out the spectrum absorbed.

[Greyblades]

I think commercial solar panels are...30% efficient?Currently the best achieved sunlight conversion rate (solar panel efficiency) is around 21% in commercial products, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_panel)

[a completely inoffensive name]

Currently the best achieved sunlight conversion rate (solar panel efficiency) is around 21% in commercial products, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_panel)


Ouch, I must have been thinking of some of the experimental stuff in labs. So obviously, we can see where the problems of solar comes in.

[Askthepizzaguy]

I feel like commenting on the subject of asteroid mining and space exploration, even though I'm a total noob and amateur fan of the subject.

Feels ranty, so I'll toss a spoiler around it. Sometimes I just feel like typing I guess.


I think I will always be a video game geek, and it's warped my brain forever.

When I think of Earth, and I think of how we run it, I sort of feel like we're playing Civilization IV. While we've seemingly settled into a sort of diplomatic victory mode (by far, the best kind for real-world applications...) I've noticed that we've made not nearly enough progress turning our cities around and pushing them toward cleaner and alternative energy sources, and if we think about the great projects, our last major achievement was the internet. As great as that is, we could be doing something with our advanced and prosperous civilization besides the obvious Hit Singles for Oil trade. We make music and tv, and the world gives us other resources. Is that it? Can't we do something else with our supposedly greatest civilization in all of human history, and if you believe we're the only intelligent life in this universe, the most powerful civilization in the whole of the universe? If we're number one, why can't we do more than shoot robots at space objects?

Come on, space victory is the way to go from here. I want my grandchildren to be able to tell me about how cool it is to work on a colony ship. Even if they're just building one.

I'm going to be dead far before anything truly interesting happens, but I still vainly wish for some part of me to spread through the COSMOS, you guys. And I'd like to see some part of the rest of you join me up there.

The NASA space program is not why we're broke. Not even token respect for the simplest budgeting practices is why. What NASA and similar projects have given us is a far greater understanding of the universe, and the possibility for formulating a defense against life-obliterating asteroid collisions with Earth. Now there is even the possibility of altering such a fate. How about the useful technology we got from all the research?

Asteroid mining, for some people, means finding gold and stuff that is precious in the asteroids and bringing it down to Earth.

I think that's a line to sell to the gullible masses. Finding a thousand tons of gold in space isn't going to make it any more valuable here on earth, it will make it less scarce and less valuable. The point of mining in asteroids is likely to get things that will be useful IN SPACE, like water. And oxygen.

Water will be about a billion times more valuable than gold in space, because it sustains life and can be turned into fuel. Gold is not even close to as useful. It will be one of the more forgettable, somewhat useful things we get up there. We don't value water because it falls out of the sky here on Earth. But it's stupid to make rockets to shoot our water into space. It's much smarter to look for ice out there. How about building materials for space stations, vehicles, cargo containers, infrastructure.... we going to shoot it up into space at the cost of how much per rocket, which can only carry so much weight, or taking it from asteroids where we don't have to worry so much about escape velocity.

You will never get anywhere in space until you develop a spaceborne infrastructure and a spaceborne economy. You cannot build a civilization without an economy, and when you're in space, you need to self-sustain. Everything's a hundred times more expensive getting it from Earth. Earth's resources will also be needed on Earth by the people who live there.

Asteroid mining is how you make everything else possible in the first place. Asteroid mining makes it realistic to build a colony ship, because you have a hope of making it go somewhere. You cannot build a colony from space shuttles. They take a few people and some materials. You need to have something hundreds of times bigger, and you're not going to take off from Florida in that thing if you've got any sense. You build it in space, from materials you found in space. Which means you need miners, processing centers, construction centers, living quarters....

Let me tell you guys something. It's all pie in the sky science fiction stuff. But so was human flight, and although there was never a pressing need for people to be able to fly, once it was possible, all of a sudden everyone wanted to be able to fly. Now our economy would die without it.

There's presently no demand and no need for building an economy in space. But once we do it, there will suddenly be a very big demand for building an economy in space. This is one of those things were supply creates demand. Nobody needed a computer before there were computers. Now, if you don't have a hundred different kinds of computers in your life, you're WEIRD. They're in every single bleepin' thing.

You know how the government, in a down economy, might create projects where people dig ditches just so they've got a job? Busy work?

How about instead of digging holes and filling them up, you invest in paying very, very well-educated people to create the ability to be spacefaring, as a society. Because once you do, humanity will never be the same.

The up-front cost is intimidating, but you know, we spend a lot on coming up with ways of obliterating people we don't like from miles and miles away. We spend billions of dollars on making absolutely sure that we can make fart noises come out of our cell phones, and that it is now possible to tell the entire world precisely what mood we're in and what we're doing at all times and the color of our bowel movements, because someone out there might be bored enough to read that really important information.

Asteroid mining: Really really rich people might spend lots of their own money, to probably end up losing money on the deal. Why? Because as much as they think they matter here on Earth, they don't matter. Imagine having their name in the history books during the pivotal moments on making humanity truly spacefaring. But the again, I am not sure I want the history books written by Donald Trump, nor do I want the future of humanity riding on how generous the Coca-Cola corporation feels like being. Can't we do better and fund it ourselves, like the NASA program? We're spending a lot of money doing far stupider things, let me tell you.

I think we could spend some money on stuff that might matter more than two days from now, or at all. And given what a tiny pittance it is compared with some of the rest of the silly things we spend our money on, and the exceedingly well-paying and well-educated jobs it creates, I have to wonder what politicians are smoking to abandon space.

We spent how much money so that we could plant a flag on a rock before the Russians? Is that all that was?

Because if so, that's going to make our other government expenditures seem reasonable. Ten thousand dollars on a hammer, twenty thousand dollars on a toilet seat. Trillions spent developing weapons, ordering weapons to be built, then realizing we're broke and stupid and ordered too many, sold the weapons, then had to start wars to clean up the mess we made arming people who intended to use those weapons in a way that we would have to use our weapons to solve. Also, lives.

If all we ever achieve is that flag up there, that will be a mind-numbing embarrassment, to let the flag be our legacy. Our until-the-sun-explodes monument to how dumb we are. So dumb that we're smart enough to have possibly been the species on this planet that actually escaped its own extinction, but too stupid to have done anything about it once we made ourselves capable of doing so. What happened? Jersey Shore was on?

That :daisy: was too important so we couldn't be bothered I guess.

There had better be an attempt at some kind of orbital processing facility before we kill ourselves in a giant nuclear cluster-something, so that passing aliens might laugh, but say hey, at least some of them tried to do something positive before idiocy killed em all. If we can't even end up mining a danged asteroid before we succumb to medieval fanatics armed with modern weapons, I don't want my name associated with this civilization. I will hold up a sign that says "Originally from Nebular IV. Ran out of dilithium, crash landed on under-developed planet with no hope of escape. Natives seem obsessed with nacho flavoring, fake tans, and making each other die. It's obvious I am doomed. Farewell, universe."

[gaelic cowboy]

Solar power is too inefficient at this point in time.

yes but the suns rays are free and that is the only saving grace, plus we would be takling thousands of collectors positioned to to give 24hr powersupply.

[gaelic cowboy]

Currently the best achieved sunlight conversion rate (solar panel efficiency) is around 21% in commercial products, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_panel)

obviously the efficiency would be poor to middling but with clever positioning of say 2-3 different solar farms in orbit one could have power 24hr a day.

Space-based solar power (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-based_solar_power)

[a completely inoffensive name]

obviously the efficiency would be poor to middling but with clever positioning of say 2-3 different solar farms in orbit one could have power 24hr a day.

Space-based solar power (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-based_solar_power)

These are terrible ideas.

1. Relying on less than 12 power "plants" to provide our energy is the height is naivety in our dangerous world.
2. The solar beams have to be perfectly positioned, pointing at the target as they are flying around the earth at tens of thousands of miles per hour. Any deviation would cook the earth and any humans standing there very quickly.
3. Low earth orbit has a metric ****-ton of debris that is mostly untrackable due to the small sizes. A micrometeorite or piece of space debris the size of a quarter going a couple hundred miles faster than the solar station would bring it down.

Just to give you an idea of how dangerous space debris is: Columbia was compromised not by a piece of metals breaking off and striking the ship....but by a piece of foam. And this wasn't even in space but during the shuttles ascent.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suniiico7z4

[gaelic cowboy]

These are terrible ideas.

1. Relying on less than 12 power "plants" to provide our energy is the height is naivety in our dangerous world.
2. The solar beams have to be perfectly positioned, pointing at the target as they are flying around the earth at tens of thousands of miles per hour. Any deviation would cook the earth and any humans standing there very quickly.
3. Low earth orbit has a metric ****-ton of debris that is mostly untrackable due to the small sizes. A micrometeorite or piece of space debris the size of a quarter going a couple hundred miles faster than the solar station would bring it down.

Just to give you an idea of how dangerous space debris is: Columbia was compromised not by a piece of metals breaking off and striking the ship....but by a piece of foam. And this wasn't even in space but during the shuttles ascent.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suniiico7z4

eh in reply I would have to say

1: Who said anything about power for the earth?? remember I was talking about powering one piece of equipment

2: the collectors merely harvest energy there are a number of ways that could later be used to power equipment.

3: low earth orbit is hardly where we would place such equipment now is it

[a completely inoffensive name]

1: Who said anything about power for the earth?? remember I was talking about powering one piece of equipment
Then you don't even need the collector. Just attach solar panels to the equipment in question.



2: the collectors merely harvest energy there are a number of ways that could later be used to power equipment.
Not feasible. You are now talking about putting giant batteries in space. Battery technology is woefully lacking as well, otherwise a lot of issues regarding power consumption would not exist today. Plus they would be very heavy and cost a ton to ship up there along with the solar panels.



3: low earth orbit is hardly where we would place such equipment now is it
Then you have higher transportation cost and the efficiency of transporting such energy through a beam would go down, because the inverse square law will apply.

[HopAlongBunny]

ATPG sums it up nicely.

Until you actually use space to its potential you are shooting blanks; if you create in space, you have given birth to something exceptional.

[gaelic cowboy]

Then you don't even need the collector. Just attach solar panels to the equipment in question.

If you remember the original idea was collecting energy for a space elevator sometimes it would be in shadow so it would require IF you wanted 24hr energy more than one harvesting site.



Not feasible. You are now talking about putting giant batteries in space. Battery technology is woefully lacking as well, otherwise a lot of issues regarding power consumption would not exist today. Plus they would be very heavy and cost a ton to ship up there along with the solar panels.

No need for batteries at all ACIN although you could do it by that method if you liked or you could also use microwaves sent to a central collection point or lasers or you could reflect sunlight to a single solar orbiting farm there are lots of possibilities. There is no need to send the energy to earth which I think is where we getting crossed purposes here.



Then you have higher transportation cost and the efficiency of transporting such energy through a beam would go down, because the inverse square law will apply.

I never said it would be highly efficient but it is the only free or at least free-ish source of energy in orbit.

[HopAlongBunny]

I never said it would be highly efficient but it is the only free or at least free-ish source of energy in orbit.

Solar wind? And no, I have no clue where they have managed to get with that idea so far. It just seems that an infinite source of highly charged particles ought to be persuaded to share some of that energy.

[Tellos Athenaios]

It does share Fortunately, we have a magnetosphere and distance to protect ourselves from that: round our parts the Sun's power output is diluted by a factor of 1.5 * 10^9 due to distance alone, diluted further the farther we get from the Sun. Which means within the Earth's magnetosphere it's not at all a useful source for propulsion. To be sure that is better than the alternative, without such protection solar storms could fry the electronics of the craft before it even got going.

[a completely inoffensive name]

If you remember the original idea was collecting energy for a space elevator sometimes it would be in shadow so it would require IF you wanted 24hr energy more than one harvesting site.

A space elevator is going to be one long rail from earth's surface into low/high earth orbit. It is going to look like an orange with a pin sticking out of it. The earth is going to be rotating and thus the space elevator is going to be whipping around 360 degrees every 24 hours. You are not going to have a single solar collector be able to harvest energy and beam it directly to the elevator at all times, I don't think it is possible to maintain the orbits I am imagining in my head. Yeah, I don't think it would be physically possible. You would need at least two such solar collectors, which means at any given point, one is sitting there doing nothing, just being expensive to maintain its orbit.





No need for batteries at all ACIN although you could do it by that method if you liked or you could also use microwaves sent to a central collection point or lasers or you could reflect sunlight to a single solar orbiting farm there are lots of possibilities. There is no need to send the energy to earth which I think is where we getting crossed purposes here.

What I am saying is that all energy harvested by the solar collector(s) must be consumed immediately, otherwise the energy is wasted. Any sort of "collection" or "storage" involves batteries. You need to take what ever energy you are not using and immediately turn it into potential energy somehow or you just lose the energy outright. A storage of potential electrical energy is practically the definition of a battery. So unless we want all excess energy wasted, or we somehow managed to have the space elevator maintain a constant energy usage at all times, we will need batteries up there.



I never said it would be highly efficient but it is the only free or at least free-ish source of energy in orbit.

I don't see anything wrong with what NASA has been doing with its long range space craft for decades. Putting a small-medium size nuclear reactor to power the equipment for decades. Voyager 1 and 2 are still active, albeit with many systems shut down to conserve what it left.

[Vladimir]

There is already a solar collector that collects energy from all visible wavelengths.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b6/Solar_two.jpg


It's not all that much more economical than other methods of energy generation. If you are talking about photo voltaic cells then you got some problems. I am not an expert in the technology, but my understanding of it is that if you want a wider range of wavelengths to be absorbed you are going to need compounds that either absorb wider ranges or you are going to need multiple different compounds to each be turning the photons into excited electrons.

Obviously this problem is evident if we are talking about a world where the rare earths are held hostage by china. Also, it says nothing of its economics simply by being able to absorb the spectrum. What will matter is how efficiently it will do the job. Off the top of my head, I think commercial solar panels are...30% efficient? If we had solar panels that were 70-80% efficient that would suit our needs just fine for many applications without trying to branch out the spectrum absorbed.

I can't remember what the percentages were but it was a multi-layered cell. The problem was in getting the hexagonal "pixels" to align perfectly on each layer. That is a reflecting concentrator; different.

I saw Die Another Day again this weekend, maybe we should make it out of diamonds.

[Papewaio]

Meh basic 3D geometry means that something at a sufficient distance from either pole can view the space elevator at all times.

I wouldn't bother as it isn't a stable position. I'd use Lagrange points as main distribution hubs.

I'd look at trading some of the materials from asteroids to pay for components needed in the mining. But the real end game would be using materials in space to create habitats on asteroids, planets, moons and then colony arks to take us into the Oort cloud and beyond.

Right now we are a single cell immobile creature called earth stuck in the petri dish called our solar system.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Meh basic 3D geometry means that something at a sufficient distance from either pole can view the space elevator at all times.

I wouldn't bother as it isn't a stable position. I'd use Lagrange points as main distribution hubs.

I'd look at trading some of the materials from asteroids to pay for components needed in the mining. But the real end game would be using materials in space to create habitats on asteroids, planets, moons and then colony arks to take us into the Oort cloud and beyond.

Right now we are a single cell immobile creature called earth stuck in the petri dish called our solar system.

Wait where are you picturing the space elevator being built? Anywhere between......like the arctic and antarctic circles and the space elevator is going to be blocked from the solar collector by the earth itself as it is rotating.

[Papewaio]

The optimum position for the space elevator would be equatorial. From a purely geometrical not practical point of view you could view the space elevator like the hands of a clock from a polar aligned position in space with a high enough altitude.

I wouldn't bother with a single collector for a number of reasons. I would use a mix of Lagrange points, geostionary and polar orbits with redundancy built in to a series of micro power relays and maser the energy to it. I'd look at using frequencies that would be easily absorbed by the atmosphere to minimize accidents and/or weaponisation.

This way the elevator becomes not only a transport mechanism but a way of increasing energy to earth.