Science Forums 2

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by Boerseun

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.

I think you are intentionally trying to inflate the magnitude of the problems. Humans will be on site, they can and will operate robotic machines that can do anything a human can do. We already see the technologies that will make this possible.

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.

Do you know anything about mining and refining that is not 100 years out of date? In space you don't have to worry about environmental laws, or worry about what you do with your mine tailings. Entire colonies can specialize in this type of operation. Moving from one asteroid to the next. Even a small asteroid of 1k in diameter would contain huge amounts of metals.

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.

"Laser" cutters are used in industry every day in the USA, I'm not sure about where you live but laser cutters are real and not science fiction. As for you inability to see a vast complex moving slowly around the solar system, I can see it and so can many others.

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.

I think you are totally wrong about that, our robotic explorers are very much limited compared to a human. they cannot go to any but the places least likely to get them stuck, they are severely limited to what they can do or not and what experiments they can carry out. Hell a bear could walk by most of them and we would never notice it.

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?

Don't you get it, 30 years is far to long, five to ten is more like it under the worst scenarios. If the market slumps you leave the stuff in orbit around the sun. don't bring it to earth orbit till it's needed. You have to think out side the box oh great cosmic cow.

"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?

You can't get away from the idea of ore rocks dropping from the sky can you? one time lifting bodies can be made from the refined metals and landed on the earth. No launch vehicles will be launched from the earth to pick up shipments of refined metals. You are stuck thinking in out dated planetary terms. In space everything is different. the electronics could be brought back to orbit each time but I'm betting even those will be disposable enough to use only once. a one time lading body doesn't have to be made to the same standards or need the same things as a one time landing body.

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.

i understand very well what I am talking about , it is you that cannot think outside the box.

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.

Nope i never said that, asteroids do not have enough gravity for humans to colonize them, i am talking about totally artificial habitats. toroidal in shape, much like an endless suspension bridge. Like rolling up and small valley on the earth. it would spin for gravity and people would live inside it. they could be miles across and house tens of thousands of people. The inside would be like a park, with trees and lakes and streams, it would be movable and could travel from asteroid to asteroid, refining metals, shipping them out. it would work and the colonies could also construct new colonies and spread out. we could eventaully take over the entire galaxy with these colonies.

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.

No mercury is not my major gripe just one of many.

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.

Not true, once you are established in the high ground all you have to do is drop a large rock on your enemies and they loose. Now nukes needed. just being able to operate in space is a huge military advantage, having colonies and large numbers of people is better than being a super nuclear power. Even a target as small as a tank can be targeted from space and destroyed by a metal spear.

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.

I doubt it will take that long but the longer we wait to start the longer it will take for sure.

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

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

I don't think you see how far humans have come and how good we are at over coming obstacles oh great cow. As for the cost, if you cut the military 25% to fund it it's free isn't it?