Something I've been wondering about. What exactly can be taken or done in space that is worth money. There are two things that spring to mind and I'm wondering if they are economically feasible or worth it. When I say feasible I mean a more for a technologically advanced state then we are in now.
First one: Asteroid mining. This gets thrown around a lot. Thing is, asteroid don't seem to be made of very special materials. Mostly silicon, oxygen, carbon, iron and nickel. Those are pretty common here. I suppose they'd be handy if you were building something in space, but bringing it back to Earth doesn't seem like it would be economically profitable. Are there asteroid made of more valuable or rarer elements? Like uranium, gold, tungsten, etc?
Second one: farming. I remember this from The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. In the novel the moon colonists grew crops on the moon in big greenhouses and sent them to Earth. Is that really feasible? Presumably they get more light on the Moon, but I would think the cold and need to bring up soil would be a problem. I wouldn't think regolith would be good for planting crops in.
Honestly don't know much about these type of things, that's why I'm asking here.
Some sort of energy production maybe. Solar arrays or orbital reactors. Tourism, of course. Definitely not farming.
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.
Like MIM said energy production might be quite valuable, since theere is no weight at all. And obviously the only commercial exploitation of space so far is the information from orbiting satellites.
Mining? Companies are already exploring some incredibly inhospitable places for mining, so I wouldn't rule it out completely. But obviously it wouldn't be for more common resources like iron. But can you find gold or diamonds on an asteroid?
Farming absolutely not. It's a hell of a lot easier to use "big greenhouses" here on earth.
Communications (TV, phone, internet) via satellites seems to be economical.
Space factories producing space goods for the space masses.
It would seem more likely to farm in the Antarctic before the moon.
Astronaut bread for the masses!
Quote from: Barrister on November 23, 2011, 01:18:24 PM
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.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 23, 2011, 01:30:25 PM
It would seem more likely to farm in the Antarctic before the moon.
Humm, now THAT is an idea!
Shooting Tim into the Sun for fun and entertainment.
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 23, 2011, 05:32:59 PM
Shooting Tim into the Sun for fun and entertainment.
Your hatred is undeserved.
Tim is an undispensable member of this forum.
Unlike you.
Quote from: Siege on November 23, 2011, 05:17:20 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 23, 2011, 01:18:24 PM
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?
Quote from: Siege on November 23, 2011, 05:35:20 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 23, 2011, 05:32:59 PM
Shooting Tim into the Sun for fun and entertainment.
Your hatred is undeserved.
Tim is an undispensable member of this forum.
Unlike you.
Jehovah.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 23, 2011, 05:42:35 PM
Quote from: Siege on November 23, 2011, 05:17:20 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 23, 2011, 01:18:24 PM
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.
I asked Siege not you.
Quote from: Siege on November 23, 2011, 05:17:20 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 23, 2011, 01:18:24 PM
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.
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;
Quote from: Tyr on November 23, 2011, 06:41:27 PM
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.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 23, 2011, 05:48:55 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 23, 2011, 05:42:35 PM
Quote from: Siege on November 23, 2011, 05:17:20 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 23, 2011, 01:18:24 PM
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 23, 2011, 05:42:35 PM
What do you intend to make it out of?
Poop.
http://www.weebls-stuff.com/toons/A+Walk+In+The+Woods/
Quote from: Neil on November 23, 2011, 06:59:54 PM
Quote from: Tyr on November 23, 2011, 06:41:27 PM
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.
Quote from: Tyr on November 23, 2011, 08:03:06 PM
Quote from: Neil on November 23, 2011, 06:59:54 PM
Quote from: Tyr on November 23, 2011, 06:41:27 PM
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.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 23, 2011, 07:06:18 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 23, 2011, 09:06:44 PM
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.
Quote from: Neil on November 23, 2011, 08:12:59 PM
Quote from: Tyr on November 23, 2011, 08:03:06 PM
Quote from: Neil on November 23, 2011, 06:59:54 PM
Quote from: Tyr on November 23, 2011, 06:41:27 PM
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.
:huh:
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.
Quote from: Tyr on November 23, 2011, 09:53:17 PM
Quote from: Neil on November 23, 2011, 08:12:59 PM
Quote from: Tyr on November 23, 2011, 08:03:06 PM
Quote from: Neil on November 23, 2011, 06:59:54 PM
Quote from: Tyr on November 23, 2011, 06:41:27 PM
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.
:huh:
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.
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.
Quote from: Neil on November 23, 2011, 11:10:50 PM
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.
Well Satellites are subsidized aren't they? If they weren't would there be so many of them?
Also, satellite launches don't exactly advance the technology of space travel.
I dunno, the ESA at least keeps developing its rockets so they can launch satellites safer, cheaper, etc...
Quote from: Neil on November 23, 2011, 06:59:54 PM
Quote from: Tyr on November 23, 2011, 06:41:27 PM
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.
Creature comforts for who? Fifty or one hundred years out, would we even need a manned crew on site? Surely we could just use robots for most of the work.
Quote from: Tyr on November 24, 2011, 12:10:21 AM
I dunno, the ESA at least keeps developing its rockets so they can launch satellites safer, cheaper, etc...
Yes, but rocketry is only useful for certain things. You can develop your rockets all you want, but rocketry is going to be a lot less useful than you would think is space travel.
Quote from: Faeelin on November 24, 2011, 12:24:47 AM
Quote from: Neil on November 23, 2011, 06:59:54 PM
Quote from: Tyr on November 23, 2011, 06:41:27 PM
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.
Creature comforts for who? Fifty or one hundred years out, would we even need a manned crew on site? Surely we could just use robots for most of the work.
Creature comforts for the people on Earth. It's the cost of developing the technology and perfecting the technology that would make it impossible, because it's more important to bribe the electorate.
Now, I don't enjoy bursting Timmay balloons like Neil does, there are some very serious problems with space flight with our current technology. It's not really very practical, and barely possible. It amazes me that there aren't more disasters then there has been. I like space exploration and respect the folks who do it. You have to have real balls to strap yourself to large canister of highly volatile chemicals and set off a series of explosions under your ass. And that's just on the way up. Space is pretty hostile to human life. Or in the words of famed astronaut Sullivan Carew, "Space is one cold motherfucker".
Quote from: Neil on November 24, 2011, 12:27:26 AM
Quote from: Tyr on November 24, 2011, 12:10:21 AM
I dunno, the ESA at least keeps developing its rockets so they can launch satellites safer, cheaper, etc...
Yes, but rocketry is only useful for certain things. You can develop your rockets all you want, but rocketry is going to be a lot less useful than you would think is space travel.
Huh?
babysteps. The "keeping up with the joneses"-model will make sure that space-tourism gets cheaper. Much of the rest will flow from that.
the other bit will come from the fact that at some point someone will breach the treaties that keep space demilitarized.
All of it is inevitable.
problem is that it's taking them so goddamn long!
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on November 24, 2011, 02:44:26 PM
babysteps. The "keeping up with the joneses"-model will make sure that space-tourism gets cheaper. Much of the rest will flow from that.
Until the first accident, which I think is inevitable.
Quote from: Tyr on November 24, 2011, 04:07:22 AM
Quote from: Neil on November 24, 2011, 12:27:26 AM
Quote from: Tyr on November 24, 2011, 12:10:21 AM
I dunno, the ESA at least keeps developing its rockets so they can launch satellites safer, cheaper, etc...
Yes, but rocketry is only useful for certain things. You can develop your rockets all you want, but rocketry is going to be a lot less useful than you would think is space travel.
Huh?
I think Neil means that chemical rockets are lame. If so, he would be correct. Chemical rockets are of extremely limited utility for heavy lift or extrasolar (or even interplanetary) missions, and the pussies will never permit nuclear rockets; we missed our window.
The future? Organic Superlube.
QuoteOrganic Superlube? Oh, it's great stuff, great stuff. You really have to keep an eye on it, though. It'll try and slide away from you the first chance it gets.
Quote from: Monoriu on November 24, 2011, 09:08:30 PM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on November 24, 2011, 02:44:26 PM
babysteps. The "keeping up with the joneses"-model will make sure that space-tourism gets cheaper. Much of the rest will flow from that.
Until the first accident, which I think is inevitable.
won't stop anything. It never does.
Second one will though. See the US space shuttle.
Quote from: Neil on November 23, 2011, 11:10:50 PM
Quote from: Tyr on November 23, 2011, 09:53:17 PM
Quote from: Neil on November 23, 2011, 08:12:59 PM
Quote from: Tyr on November 23, 2011, 08:03:06 PM
Quote from: Neil on November 23, 2011, 06:59:54 PM
Quote from: Tyr on November 23, 2011, 06:41:27 PM
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.
:huh:
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.
There are a lot of recent startups moving into the launch business as of late, and they're getting lots of investment. Space X especially has been very successful.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on November 25, 2011, 01:20:33 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on November 24, 2011, 09:08:30 PM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on November 24, 2011, 02:44:26 PM
babysteps. The "keeping up with the joneses"-model will make sure that space-tourism gets cheaper. Much of the rest will flow from that.
Until the first accident, which I think is inevitable.
won't stop anything. It never does.
Seen many passenger zepplins lately? :lol:
Quote from: HVC on November 25, 2011, 11:16:13 AM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on November 25, 2011, 01:20:33 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on November 24, 2011, 09:08:30 PM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on November 24, 2011, 02:44:26 PM
babysteps. The "keeping up with the joneses"-model will make sure that space-tourism gets cheaper. Much of the rest will flow from that.
Until the first accident, which I think is inevitable.
won't stop anything. It never does.
Seen many passenger zepplins lately? :lol:
didn't stop airtravel one bit. With or without the hindenburg disaster zeppelins would have been superceded by airplanes. Nothing was stopped in other words. :lol:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 25, 2011, 10:55:20 AM
There are a lot of recent startups moving into the launch business as of late, and they're getting lots of investment. Space X especially has been very successful.
They haven't done shit other than launch satellites, and we'll see how that works out for them.