If this has such unprecedented promise, you’d expect corporations to be lined up racing to be among the first to reap these benefits, wouldn’t you? Had money of that kind been spent over a 10 year period to create permanent space habs (Apollo cost a mere $20-25 billions for perspective), then I don’t doubt we’d have had permanent space habitats by now. I just think you vastly overestimate their frequency of occurance, and vastly underestimate the difficulties of leaving planet earth and making somewhere else our primary home within the next few generations which is almost verbatim what you claimed was a likelihood. It would not take that much money, say about 0.2 of 1% of our GDP for a year, or far, far less per nation if the EU, Japan and the US decided to do it.One believes that you overestimated the difficulties, underestimated the value of space resources, and frankly, having not given any real, factual DATA about the costs of space travel, despite protestations that you are FOR space, seem rather pessimistic.
Should the Chinese with their huge GDP decide to do it first, then one hopes we can learn Mandarin in short order. I don’t doubt the problems are there, but unlike you, I don’t doubt that major ones have been largely solved.It’s not lack of resources or technologies or money, which are the problems. I’ve given some sources, in which are contained many, many further references.. Well, the money is there.
What other source did you give other than a popular science book, which isn’t even much of source? Present some real sources and some real facts and I’d be happy to look at them. It required a long term, sustained investment and work. But until then the problems are NOT financial OR technological, but cultural & psych, fixed right squarely between human ears.
Consider than the Iran/Iraq war in the 1980’s cost about $1 trillion. That was why the government had to promote it, as necessary for our defense, as well as commercial airliner industry. No corps have the resources to do it of themselves, unless Bill Gates is willing to take the risk with half his fortune. You cannot simply dismiss the facts there wth a wave of your amateur hand, which is what you have done.Frankly, your comments bear no weight.
E10, 10/1994 AbstractRecent discoveries of near-Earth asteroids (NEAs) and chemical analyses of fragments of asteroids (meteorites) suggest that there may be a gold mine, literally, in near-Earth space. Perhaps it will take two closely space volcanic eruptions, or the onset of another full Ice Age, devastating the northern hemisphere before it will be realized what needs to be done. Perhaps after the first partial gigaton impactor strikes a major nation plus cities, killing 100’s of 1000’s to millions or more, then the race will wake up.
The problems are real, but certainly solvable. The development of th VCR was one such. Because space is all there is, and the earth is inconsequential except to us locals. Quit mischaracterising my position. We simply do NOT have enough food to feed even a fraction of our people even with a SINGLE ‘year without a summer’ let alone several.
You keep whining that I’m not substantiating my *opinion*, but you are throwing numbers around and not providing any justification for them.Show us YOUR sources and your data instead of asking me to take your word for it. I defy you to find that kind of return on any investment on earth, on that scale. American ones, are oblivious to long term investments and goals. The resources also are there in space.
It would be devestating. Leaving it to the nation/consortium which does indeed first do it to run the show on earth, from the ultimate military high ground of space. I fully realize the threat, and I don’t need your book recommendations. The resources also are there in space.
Metalliferous asteroids as potential sources of precious metals Journal of Geophysical Research vol. 99, no. That is why our evolution must necessarily carry us into space.I’ve repeatedly asked you WHY we cannot explore and inhabit space. It’s lack of motivation.
Judged from meteorite analyses, two types of asteroids offer particularly bright prospects for recovery of large quantities of precious metals (defined as Au, Pt, Ir, Os, Pd, Rh, and Ru), the ordinary LL chondrites, which contain 1.2-5.3% Fe-Ni metal containing 50-220 ppm of precious metals, and metallic asteroids, which consist almost wholly of Fe-Ni phases and contain variable amounts of precious metals up to several hundred ppm. Kargel, Jeffrey S. Successful recovery of 400,000 tons or more of precious metals contained in the smallest and least rich of these metallic NEAs could yield products worth $5.1 trillion (US) at recent market prices. Suitable metallic asteroids could be processed in their entirety.
Let’s see, worth of $5-10 trillions)conservatively) in metals divided by a cost of $20-25 Billions. Good find Ophio, but HOW are we supposed to mine one of those, get the materials back to earth, and so on? It’s the logistics that don’t seem realistic, not the materials that make up asteroids.And then, even if we could, how does that translate to steve’s claim of humans “leaving earth as their primary home”? Having a lot more materials is great but it still requires resources to use em, resources to get em, and feats of logistics we haven’t even come close to achieving to even begin to accomplish.
A range of about, what, 20,000-40,000% return on investment, more or less. Have anything more substantial? A popular science book, with some data and some very fanciful exaggerations (according to reviews) is hardly convincing.Besides, if the return is so great – why isn’t it being done? You mentioned lack of motivation, but for big business $$$ is the biggest motivator of all.
If this has such unprecedented promise, you’d expect corporations to be lined up racing to be among the first to reap these benefits, wouldn’t you? Corps are NOT going to commit to the long term goals of space habiation and exploration because it will not bring immediate profits. Popular literature is fun and all but it’s hardly scientific support – very, very far from it.
Consider the worth of a single iron rich asteroid of about 500 m. in diameter. Given our huge populations, and their sensitivity to ANY kind of energy or food interruption (remember Katrina?), we could indeed lose our civilization to a prolonged asteroidal winter. I’ve read plenty of popular literature – Davies, Greene, Smoot and others, but there are limitations that have to be recognized when it comes to it. He could do it, frankly, given the proper organization and support.Long term investments in the aerospace industry 60 years ago, also, were not being made by US corps.
No where else. Statistically, there should be approximately six metallic NEAs larger than 1 km in diameter that contain over 100 ppm of precious metals. Originally Posted by steve Well, the money is there. It’s not been done due anything BUT lack of incentive to do so.
NO, the numan future necessarily lies in space, because the resources there are so vast that those on earth are trivial. The pulverized regolith of LL chondrite asteroids could be electromagnetically raked to separate the metallic grains. And ignoring a potential problem is NOT dealing with it. I guess that means, Skylab, Mir and the ISS haven’t had during their lifespans, nearly continuous occupation.
There is no royal road to geometry, or learning about space habitation, travel, acquiring asteroids, or much else. I’ve given Mining the Sky and “Rocks from Space’ as two good source texts about these, in which they contain hudnreds of additional references.Don’t impugn me because you can’t hit a library or haven’t same, either of which is not a good excuse. You’ve dismissed space travel and habitation, and plausibly no amount of data is going to change that mind set.
The mass is about 65.6 million cu. m., translating to about 550 million metric tons of iron and nickel with a smattering of heavier elements such as chromium, cobalt, etc.It could be obtained according to “Mining the Sky” for about $20-25 B, altho given new technologies over the last 15 years, doubtless less by now. The Internet IS NOT an archival source of information. First you made the comment that we haven’t been living off the earth on a regular basis. A range of about, what, 20,000-40,000% return on investment, more or less.
Corps again, did NOT of themselves, go in that direction either.The same is abundantly true of human space habitation. The mass is about 65.6 million cu. m., translating to about 550 million metric tons of iron and nickel with a smattering of heavier elements such as chromium, cobalt, etc.It could be obtained according to “Mining the Sky” for about $20-25 B, altho given new technologies over the last 15 years, doubtless less by now. Let’s see, worth of $5-10 trillions)conservatively) in metals divided by a cost of $20-25 Billions. Of course, pretending we have the means to fix it (or will soon) when we don’t (and probably won’t), doesn’t fix it either.
The money is there. Given that the largest costs for space habitats are the several $1000’s/kg. put into NEO, not only would it create a very large “bank” of raw materials for far, far cheaper space construction than mass lifted out of the deep earth gravity well, but an actual metals worth in the $5-10 trillions to finance the job.It’s doable. The US corps were not willing to do that. Agree.
You cursorily dismiss them without even reading or even treating with the data and ideas there.Frankly, your positions are pessimistic, and since you steadfastly refuse to join in a factual, scientific discussion of the pertinent facts & concepts which might support your position, one can take your comments for what they are worth. Obviously, if you think it can’t be done, you won’t EVER do it. It’s but a window. I’d love to be wrong about this one but telling me that I’m wrong doesn’t do the trick.Why don’t you answer my last question while you’re at it?
Besides, if the return is so great – why isn’t it being done? You mentioned lack of motivation, but for big business $$$ is the biggest motivator of all. The Japanese did and got the entire US market.Making an investment in going out and seizing a metal rich asteroid is of the same type. I defy you to find that kind of return on any investment on earth, on that scale.
Its net worth is in the trillions easily. You are simply ignoring the facts. “Mining the sky” is a very good primer on what’s going on. Show me some research which suggests that this project is doable.I did a quick search on “Mining the Sky” and read a couple reviews – I really don’t think you should be criticizing other people for not substantiating their views if this is the best you can come up with.
You simply refuse to supply any data which support your assertions, then accuse my posts of doing what you are manifestly doing. Given a broadly generalizing belief based upon that kind of lack of specific data, reasoning and ideas, one can reasonably deny its truth value. Altho in the long run the profits will be unlimitted.It’s lack of vision, lack of corporate will and a buy+custom+essay+online
mindset, again, which is geocentric and eventually will destroy itself.As I’ve written before, the human interest in survival and long term benefits lies not on the earth, but in space, because space is all there is and the earth is inconsequential.Sooner or later, this will become abundantly clear that humanity’s future does NOT lie on the earth, but in space. You cite costs, but then give no references at all. Consider the worth of a single iron rich asteroid of about 500 m. in diameter.
Its net worth is in the trillions easily. It takes work, not sitting in front of a computer thinking it will pour data into one’s brain. It’s NOT the library of learning The first power which takes the high ground of space and tethers that to a large, metal rich asteroid will run the show on earth from that massive financial and military advantage. Corporations, esp.
No argument here.