Science Forums 2

[Boerseun]

Originally Posted by Moontanman

You do not have a good idea of how a mass driver would work, no need for a uniform homogeneous aggregate. you put stuff in buckets, you accelerate the bucket and fling the stuff in it out into space, the bucket stays.

How do you:

1) Propose getting the stuff in the buckets.
2) Expect point number 1 to be cheap and easy in anybody's books, given what we know about mining today?

I don't think you quite understand the magnitude of the operation you propose.

Originally Posted by Moontanman

Again why would you move the asteroid into earth orbit? You refine the metals on site and move the refined metals to the earth. You use the left overs from the refining process as mass for the mass drivers.

Do you know anything about mining, Moontan? Do you know anything about refining? You are proposing an entire supporting industry to mining, one that will inflate costs to even more unreasonable levels. I still have not heard a peep about how you're planning to make your space mining venture competable in any way, with existing Earthbound enterprises.

Originally Posted by Moontanman

I can see a huge complex, moving slowly among the asteroids, it moves to an asteroid, refines the metals and starts them to earth with a robot type drive section attached. Then you move the complex to the next asteroid. BTW you make your own cutting tools, lasers and other things make great cutting tools.

To the former, I can't see it. To the latter, science fiction is ablaze with vague terms like "laser cutters" and such, where the energy source is conveniently ignored for the sake of the narrative. In short, no dice.

Originally Posted by Moontanman

Not to mention highly limited, can you imagine how limited our knowledge of Antarctica would be if we used robotic rovers that cannot be controlled directly for the exploration of Antarctica? It's doubtful we would know 1% of what we do now.

I will even go one further and say that if we only had robot explorers on Antarctica, of the kind available in the next decade or two, we would've known much more, much faster of that particular continent than what we have so far with human explorers. "Cool" and "Awesome" means nothing in Science. Sorry. All that counts is the data, and like I said in my prior most, it doesn't matter who or what gathers it.

Originally Posted by Moontanman

Not if the potential profits were an order of magnitude higher. Once the "pipeline" was full shipments of refined metals could arrive every few days or weeks. No need to wait years on shipments.

I'm not sure if you're just willful, or if you really don't understand my point. There is no such thing as a "commodity pipeline". If it takes you thirty years for your "pipeline" to fill up, so that your supply feeds at the same time as your consumption on Earth, what are you going to do in the face of market slumps or demand increases? Mines on Earth throttle or increase production to cater for it. Your particular "pipeline" will be completely unresponsive to market forces, and, as such, would be discounted by the market as the unresponsive, completely overpriced (compared to Earth-based suppliers) behemoth that it is. People won't buy from you. Don't you get it?

Originally Posted by Moontanman

Again we are not talking about dropping rocks from orbit, the infrastructure for guiding space craft to the ground is already in place, shipments of refined metals would be brought in just like space craft, to controlled landings, not craters!

"Shipments of refined metals would be brough in just like space craft to controlled landings".
Have you any idea of what you propose? How do you expect a controlled landing of an ore shipment? You used half its mass to get it to Earth. This excludes having it in the cargo hold of some sort of lander. Its too big. So now you end up with a lump of rock in Earth orbit. Do you expect a shuttle to go in orbit to collect it? You have to, because there's no way to control a pile of rock on atmospheric entry - they are notorious for having, amongst others, NO airfoils, NO ailerons, NO flight guidance systems, etc. You get the picture. You do know, of course, that launch costs per pound makes any shuttle payload more expensive than gold, kilogram for kilogram?

I really thought we had a serious discussion here, but it seems as if you don't really understand what you're talking about, Moontan.

Originally Posted by Moontanman

No one has suggested asteroids have living ecologies, how can you equate chopping up a lifeless rock in space to destroying the ecology of huge areas of the earth?

I didn't say it moontan, you did. You propose establishing space colonies on, amongst others, asteroids. Now, if a kid was born on this asteroid, and you propose mining, or, in the appropriate vernacular, raping it, have you considered that that particular kid might call the lump of rock under discussion home? Mining that asteroid will piss that kid off just as much as mining in your backyard will piss you off. We have to be consistent, you see.

Originally Posted by Moontanman

The metals in land fill have to be refined, things like mercury and pcbs are are released during this process, why do this on the earth when you don't have to?

Once again, the mere cost makes it worthwhile. And if mercury release is your biggest gripe, then process research might make this less of an issue. Research which, I might add, is much cheaper and better applicable at home.

Originally Posted by Moontanman

If you used 25% of what is spent on the military humanity could own the inner solar system in 50 years, easily.

This is assuming that there is any advantage to it. Arming your country to the teeth has the advantage of enabling you to withstand any attacks by your neighbouring countries. That, at least, and as ghastly as the entire enterprise might seem, is the advantages of military expense. It's tangible, at least to a certain extent. Humans would never "own" the inner solar system in the absence of any tangible benefit - however you want to cut it.

Originally Posted by Moontanman

at some point the lions share of expense would be shouldered by the colonies themselves.

It would take centuries of committed effort for any "colony" to be big enough to shoulder any financial burden of any sort, whatsoever. I beg you, I implore you, to explain how you expect a colony of any size to commit to any sort of financial agreement to the scale you propose, in any time less than a thousand years.

Originally Posted by Moontanman

If we used 100% of what we spend on the military could be owning the entire solar system and be starting on the alpha centauri system in 50 years.

I don't think you quite appreciate the obstacles to your proposal, squire.

Originally Posted by Moontanman

expense is a relative thing.

Say that to the taxpayer, who'll be footing the bill.