Economic exploitation of space

[Neil]

The trouble with taking advantage of anything economically in space is that the transportation costs are absolutely enormous.  As such anything you'd need to do would have to be extremely high value / weight.

The Space Elevator (tm) will solve this problem.

Except in the sense that it won't, because it won't get built.

[Josquius]

One - Yes, towards the end of the century perhaps. There are some pretty darn valuable asteroids out there.

Two- No, that's silly. People often forget  there are broad uninhabited swathes of the earth infinitely more colonisable than space;

[Neil]

One - Yes, towards the end of the century perhaps. There are some pretty darn valuable asteroids out there.

I think you're underestimating the cost of space travel and asteroid exploitation, especially when the priority is going to be creature comforts.

[Ideologue]

The trouble with taking advantage of anything economically in space is that the transportation costs are absolutely enormous.  As such anything you'd need to do would have to be extremely high value / weight.

The Space Elevator (tm) will solve this problem.

What do you intend to make it out of?

Carbon nanotubes.

You son of a bitch.  I'm not going through this again.

Anyway, afaik solar-to-microwave power satellites have been demonstrated to be sort-of feasible.  Otherwise, barring the discovery of a nearby extrasolar terrestrial planet (and even then it's difficult to overstate the difficulties), nada.

As time marches on, the exploitation of outer space will become more and more economical/necessary as the world becomes more and more uninhabitable.  This is, of course, for our descendents in the deep future, and their not being human will certainly help.

[fhdz]

What do you intend to make it out of?

Poop.

http://www.weebls-stuff.com/toons/A+Walk+In+The+Woods/

[Josquius]

One - Yes, towards the end of the century perhaps. There are some pretty darn valuable asteroids out there.

I think you're underestimating the cost of space travel and asteroid exploitation, especially when the priority is going to be creature comforts.

Exploiting the asteroids means more creature comforts.

And no, I:m well aware of the cost of space travel. That is why I wouldn't see this happening until the end of the century- when technology should be good enough we can make much of what is needed on site.

[Neil]

One - Yes, towards the end of the century perhaps. There are some pretty darn valuable asteroids out there.

I think you're underestimating the cost of space travel and asteroid exploitation, especially when the priority is going to be creature comforts.

Exploiting the asteroids means more creature comforts.

Perhaps once it starts, but it would mean sacrificing them to get to the point where you can do that.

[Razgovory]

You son of a bitch.  I'm not going through this again.

Anyway, afaik solar-to-microwave power satellites have been demonstrated to be sort-of feasible.  Otherwise, barring the discovery of a nearby extrasolar terrestrial planet (and even then it's difficult to overstate the difficulties), nada.

As time marches on, the exploitation of outer space will become more and more economical/necessary as the world becomes more and more uninhabitable.  This is, of course, for our descendents in the deep future, and their not being human will certainly help.

I find it so strange that Tim is so excited about Science but has like a comic book knowledge of it. 

I did look up Space farming.  Apparently there some ideas floating around for permanent stations on Mars or the moon, but not as a serious economic activity. 

[Ideologue]

Farming seems like it would be pretty difficult/pointless in space, short of organisms that could incorporate basically raw carbon and sunlight (algae may suffice?).  I thought it was especially retarded in Harsh Mistress where they were lifting soil and fertilizer and such to the moon, then shooting it back at Earth.  Sensible.  In fairness, the economic realities of the moon were secondary to the point of the novel, which was libertarians chucking rocks at Earth liberals.

I also don't get asteroid mining.  OMG WE'VE STRUCK IRON!  Seriously, is there any material on an asteroid that isn't readily available (or more available) on Earth?  Possibly some of those weird metals that China buys up to make electronic components?

As for Tim, I like space elevators too, I like reading about them.  I enjoy Tim's optimism, but he just goes off half-cocked like he knows the first thing about materials science.  I don't know the first thing about materials science, really, but I do know that scalability of the properties of macromolecules is not necessarily a linear process and that there are serious production/purity issues involved--even aside from the economic feasibility and engineering concerns.

[Razgovory]

Farming seems like it would be pretty difficult/pointless in space, short of organisms that could incorporate basically raw carbon and sunlight (algae may suffice?).  I thought it was especially retarded in Harsh Mistress where they were lifting soil and fertilizer and such to the moon, then shooting it back at Earth.  Sensible.  In fairness, the economic realities of the moon were secondary to the point of the novel, which was libertarians chucking rocks at Earth liberals.

You know thinking about it, it's a good metaphor for all those farmers who bitch about government but get very generous subsidies from the same government.  Rebelling against the very system that makes their lives possible due to a misplaced sense of grievance.

[Josquius]

One - Yes, towards the end of the century perhaps. There are some pretty darn valuable asteroids out there.

I think you're underestimating the cost of space travel and asteroid exploitation, especially when the priority is going to be creature comforts.

Exploiting the asteroids means more creature comforts.

Perhaps once it starts, but it would mean sacrificing them to get to the point where you can do that.

I don't see how.
Rich people invest in things, they don't just spend the money they have on more shiny things. Its what they do.

[Neil]

One - Yes, towards the end of the century perhaps. There are some pretty darn valuable asteroids out there.

I think you're underestimating the cost of space travel and asteroid exploitation, especially when the priority is going to be creature comforts.

Exploiting the asteroids means more creature comforts.

Perhaps once it starts, but it would mean sacrificing them to get to the point where you can do that.

I don't see how.
Rich people invest in things, they don't just spend the money they have on more shiny things. Its what they do.

They invest in things that will show a return.  There's no return on space travel.

[Razgovory]

Bingo.  It's not like Neil Armstrong, and Buzz Aldrin came back from laden with moon spices.  Space tourism is a novelty for the rich, and it's so expensive and difficult to send anything up, you really can't do much to take things back down.  You do sciency stuff, communication, and weapons and that's about it.  And nobody does weapons by treaty.  Or at least admits to it.

[Josquius]

They invest in things that will show a return.  There's no return on space travel.

There's a huge return on space. Satellites are big business and a lot of work is going into commercial spaceflight from several companies.

Asteroid mining- well yes, there:s no way to make money from that yet. As I said though I don't see it happening till towards the end of the century. The odds are good that by then technology will have improved thus bringing the cost way down, and the price of minerals will have gone up, making it more worthwhile to get them.

[Razgovory]

Well Satellites are subsidized aren't they?  If they weren't would there be so many of them?