Asteroid Mining

[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.

[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.

[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

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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!