Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MetalSlimeHunt]

We need someone to figure out the logistical and technical hurdles and say, "Moon? Mars? Screw that, we're going to the Belt and coming back with a mountain of gold, baby."

You probably wouldn't have to go all the way out to the Belt to get your mountain of gold. There are probably a decent number of closer asteroids.

This makes me wonder if there are literally any asteroids composed of gold, though. Having that in LEO would be quite the sight.

[Eagleon]

Greatorder, Loud Whispers, can you take it to PM? You're about a quarter of the way to taking up the entire topic summary in Reply Mode =P

True, but the safest bet to get to the Moon would have been to build some kind of space station first, *then* go to the Moon. Back in '69, we said "Fuck it," and went straight to the moon with no support infrastructure. That's the kind of leap forward we need, IMHO. We need someone to figure out the logistical and technical hurdles and say, "Moon? Mars? Screw that, we're going to the Belt and coming back with a mountain of gold, baby."

I live for the day when James Cameron personally pilots some kind of glorified space tug hauling a rock back with enough rare-Earths and isotopes in it to be worth the GDP of a moderately-sized nation. 'Cause I can guarantee you the 2nd Space Race would be ON.

Will it happen? Highly unlikely, at least in Cameron's lifetime. But it's worth pinning some hopes on.

At the moment, any kind of manned mission to the moon is roughly equivalent to any previous manned missions to the moon in importance. We really haven't gotten too far there, and it's frustrating that most people seem to think of it as a dull, pointless undertaking now, compared to Mars, which wouldn't really have a pay-off (economically or in our capacity to get anywhere else in space) in most of our lifetimes.

For a belt mission, you'd be talking about a trip on the order of decades for anything that can support even one person, unless you're willing to consume that same GDP to get there. If we get some nice infrastructure set up to build that tug cheaply, on the other hand...

[Rose]

Guys, can we seriously stop with the sarcasm talk? Thanks.

[Leafsnail]

I know can determine the elements on the surface of a far-away object by observing the exact wavelength of the light that reflects off of it. There are probably some other methodologies I'm missing as well.

I would've thought that for something as relatively tiny and far away as an asteroid that would be fairly difficult.  And you'd only get the surface, although I guess you could hope it's the same all the way through.

Asteroid fields aren't dangerous. The asteroids are close together, but only in a relative sense, which in space is a long distance.

It's true that it's "unlikely" that you'll hit an asteroid, but hitting one would be pretty disasterous and it would be hard to track all of them.

[Loud Whispers]

Asteroids? It'll be the small ones that would cause the nasty accidents. Where's that picture of an impact of a coin sized meteorite gouging a hole through a space station?

Also this

[Rose]

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I know can determine the elements on the surface of a far-away object by observing the exact wavelength of the light that reflects off of it. There are probably some other methodologies I'm missing as well.

I would've thought that for something as relatively tiny and far away as an asteroid that would be fairly difficult.  And you'd only get the surface, although I guess you could hope it's the same all the way through.

No, we've done it for things as far away as planets orbiting other stars.

Asteroid fields aren't dangerous. The asteroids are close together, but only in a relative sense, which in space is a long distance.

It's true that it's "unlikely" that you'll hit an asteroid, but hitting one would be pretty disasterous and it would be hard to track all of them.

It's not just unlikely. You could fly right through the heart of the asteroid belt and you wouldn't hit anything almost every time. Movie asteroid fields aren't even remotely like real asteroid fields. And with modern computer power keeping track of a number of objects isn't all that difficult.

[Rose]

NASA is tracking every single paint chip orbiting the earth, I think we can handle asteroid.

Also in before asteroid belt addon for google earth.

[RedKing]

Huh. Apparently, Ross Perot Jr. is one of the key investors. Libertarians can into space.

And yeah, near-Earth asteroids are probably a more likely candidate, at least initially. One prospect would be 4660 Nereus, which will be making a close pass to Earth in Dec 2021. That gives them 9 years to work up the tech needed to prospect the rock, and a 2060 close flyby to establish a permanent settlement. By then, a number of hi tech metals and rare Earths are projected to be running critically low, so countries might be willing to pump up the funding.

[Leafsnail]

No, we've done it for things as far away as planets orbiting other stars.

Have we?  I guess we've seen electromagnetic spectra but that's a long way from prospecting whole planets.  Pretty sure we only have rough ideas of their sizes, atmospheres and surfaces.

It's not just unlikely. You could fly right through the heart of the asteroid belt and you wouldn't hit anything almost every time. Movie asteroid fields aren't even remotely like real asteroid fields. And with modern computer power keeping track of a number of objects isn't all that difficult.

"Almost every time" is pretty different to "every time", especially if there are lives or enormous investments at stake.  And yes you can keep track of them but you need to find them in the first place.  Man-made space junk is somewhat easier since we put it up there.  We can't find and track every tennis-ball sized lump of rock.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Huh. Apparently, Ross Perot Jr. is one of the key investors. Libertarians can into space.

I'm not surprised. Space will be the New West once colonization gets started. Its a libertarian's dream world.

And yeah, near-Earth asteroids are probably a more likely candidate, at least initially. One prospect would be 4660 Nereus, which will be making a close pass to Earth in Dec 2021. That gives them 9 years to work up the tech needed to prospect the rock, and a 2060 close flyby to establish a permanent settlement. By then, a number of hi tech metals and rare Earths are projected to be running critically low, so countries might be willing to pump up the funding.

Forget putting a base on the asteroid. Build an orbital refinery near Earth and drag the asteroid to it. Discard the asteroid into space (or Earth if it's small enough to burn up in the atmosphere) once it is drained of resources and you can reuse the refinery.

This would have the side effect of giving an incentive to build a space elevator.

Have we?  I guess we've seen electromagnetic spectra but that's a long way from prospecting whole planets.  Pretty sure we only have rough ideas of their sizes, atmospheres and surfaces.

For extrasolar planets. Asteroids that aren't very far away would get much more precise measurements.

"Almost every time" is pretty different to "every time", especially if there are lives or enormous investments at stake.

...Alright? I'm not really sure what you want me to say here.

And yes you can keep track of them but you need to find them in the first place.  Man-made space junk is somewhat easier since we put it up there.  We can't find and track every tennis-ball sized lump of rock.

You'd be surprised.

[Johuotar]

I was just thinking how mankind needs to expand to space last friday. Im all for seeking galactic level resource exploitation.

[Frumple]

We can't find and track every tennis-ball sized lump of rock.

When... when you say "can't" there, are you saying that in a sort of theoretical sense or are you referring to actual technical limitations you know of? If the latter, could you toss some links out so we can educate ourselves?

You could also interpret those questions as a simple, "Why not?" We have some pretty impressive computers nowadays.

[Flying Dice]

We can't find and track every tennis-ball sized lump of rock.

When... when you say "can't" there, are you saying that in a sort of theoretical sense or are you referring to actual technical limitations you know of? If the latter, could you toss some links out so we can educate ourselves?

You could also interpret those questions as a simple, "Why not?" We have some pretty impressive computers nowadays.

We seem to be making a pretty good shot at it. Hem.

It appears to be more a matter of "how long will it take", rather than "can we".

[palsch]

I strongly doubt they would shoot for an asteroid belt operation.

The energy cost of sending something out there, let alone bringing anything back, would be obscene enough to make it unrealistic. This post does some basic maths on the energetics of shifting something from the asteroid belt to earth orbit. Critical section;

The asteroid belt is over 20 km/s away in terms of velocity impulse. If the goal is to use the raw materials for production on Earth or in Earth orbit, we have to supply about 10 km/s of impulse. We would probably try to get lucky and find a nickel-metal asteroid in an unusual orbit requiring substantially less energy to reel it in. So let’s say we can find something requiring only 5 km/s of delta-v. Our imagined prize will be a cube 1 km on a side, having a mass around 10^13 kg. This is very small for an asteroid, but we need to moderate our ambitions. From a resource point of view, it’s still a lot.

To get this asteroid moving at 5 km/s with conventional rocket fuel (or any “fuel” that involves spitting the mass elements/ions out at high speed) would require a mass of fuel approximately twice that of the asteroid. As an example, using methane and oxygen, (4 kg of O2 for every 1 kg of CH4), we would require two years’ of global natural gas production to be delivered to the asteroid (now multiply this by a large factor for the fuel to actually deliver it from Earth’s potential well). The point is that we would be crazy to elect to push the asteroid our way with conventional rockets.

He then dismisses solar sails (unrealistic for the mass of material needed and the time of travel involved - unless your business doesn't need the materials this or next century). The only remaining option is ion engines, which have some of the flaws of each (still requires fuel which would become significant over the power levels and times required, very low thrust to date would mean excessive transport time).

Very simply, I don't see the energetics working out. And as that link says, if the energetics don't work then the economics aren't even an issue.

Near earth objects are another matter, but again delays and arguably less economical. You can't really pick your rock; there are very few candidates. You still have to wait an extended period to get it locked in; the best method would be attaching ion engines during one pass to push it into earth orbit on the next. And you still need to make the investments in zero gravity mining technology.

I'd still be in favour of this though, even if it wasn't economically viable. While some materials might have value on earth they are worth far more in space. Let's imagine we could get a significant chunk of iron (preferably a large nickel/iron rock, similar to the larger objects in the belt, but realistically not anywhere near that magnitude of size) rich material in earth orbit. Even a small asteroid would be worth a few hundred rocket launches. If we could capture and develop with just one or two launches it would be a significant return on investment. Use it as raw materials to do further captures or go straight to deeper exploration and remote bases. You are instantly making future operations significantly cheaper. If there was then a significant shortage of a specific material on earth you could target and fill that need. But in the meantime keep whatever we can in orbit to save the costs of lifting things out of our gravity well in the future.

You could make a few million selling the materials back on earth. I doubt you would seriously recoup your entire investment. It just seems to me that dumping such significant amounts into the economy would depress the price too far too quickly, and earth based mining would be remain far cheaper until supplies are actually exhausted. The only real advantage such resources would have, other than their potential abundance, would be their altitude. Selling on earth would lose that advantage, trading billions in future potential (and potential energy) to trade in materials at around cost.