[MrFlaneur]

whadyathink?

I think it's very interesting (technically), and of great benefit, but at the same time i'm worried about the people who are investing in it and their intentions. Basically, these people - Larry Page and Eric Schmidt, Charles Simonyi, Peter Diamandis et al - are all patent whores. They are making a great effort to control and define the nascent private space industry, they will patent all the appropriate technology and then lobby their respective governments for monopolistic control of all the galaxies mineral reserves,locking everyone else out. I'm a bit of a Trekky so i'm rather naive in believing that we should strive to reason and understand rather than just sucking the wealth out of everything.

Thoughts?

Discuss.

[Polymath20]

"When deep space exploration finally ramps up, it will be the corporations who name everything."

I foresee a bit of a sort of wild-wild-west atmosphere on the first human settlements off-planet. The reach of government will be very limited. It will be a little like Pandora from the movie Avatar - private contractors will provide security and only profit-inducing activities will be allowed.

In some ways this will be a boon for science and development - companies will be quick to throw ethics out the window, and thus a lot of progress can be made unobstructed by regulation. Of course, the Nazis were the last group to do this.

At first, it will still be prohibitively expensive for humans to get off earth. Something like 90% of launch weight for space craft is strictly to get out of the atmosphere. Beyond that, getting around and living in space is actually relatively easy. Other than cosmic rays, solar flares, and the occasional hyper-ballistic debris, there's not too much to worry about. It's not as if there are hurricanes and snowstorms to knock you out of the sky.

Nuclear fuels like He3 may provide a boon to our ability to break atmo. Combine that with other advances in materials (aircraft hulls that can withstand mach 20+) and you could just "fly" to outer space, or rather build up some momentum and then coast the rest of the way.

[Ghostwheel]

	Originally Posted by MrFlaneur To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I'm a bit of a Trekky so i'm rather naive in believing that we should strive to reason and understand rather than just sucking the wealth out of everything.

I'm a Trekky too, but I don't think even 1% of what happens in science fiction is remotely possible, including asteroid mining. Didn't Clarke and Asimov predict we'd have bases on Mars by now?

I would rather they invest in fusion energy, or try to discover some means of transmuting nuclear waste (into glass, perhaps). But they may come up with some applied technologies from the venture, which is more useful than just investing in hedge funds and the like. So there's that.

The challenge is to take care of the planet we have, and we're failing severely.

[EdR]

When I first read of this earlier today my first thought was "What kind of game are these chaps playing and how am I going to end up screwed?".

Now that I have time to think it over my thought at this moment is "What kind of game are these chaps playing and how am I going to end up screwed?".

[pip]

	Originally Posted by Polymath20 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	private contractors will provide security and only profit-inducing activities will be allowed.

You know. I'm really struggling to think of anything more repellant (and likely) to happen.

	Nuclear fuels like He3 may provide a boon to our ability to break atmo. Combine that with other advances in materials (aircraft hulls that can withstand mach 20+) and you could just "fly" to outer space, or rather build up some momentum and then coast the rest of the way.

Orbitals.
Proper spacecraft should never see an atmosphere
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

But so long as we're using reaction engines most of the mass of any vehicle we build will have to be fuel simply to use it.

Granted you can pretty efficiently change orbits and get virtually anywhere in the solar system with two engine firings and spend most of the journey coasting. But transfer orbits are fuel efficient rather than time efficient.
The more direct the route you take, the more fuel you use. And with current technology there is a hard limit on how direct a route we can take as the mass of the fuel required itself can become great enough that no amount of engine could possibly move it in a useful manner.
Basically, reaction engines are for fine maneuvering and course correction.
Trying to use them get anywhere significant is like trying to drive down a motorway in a pedal cart, towing a huge trailer of food: There's technically nothing stopping you from doing it, but it's not gonna be pleasant, it's going to take forever and there's plenty of opportunity for things to go wrong.
Now if we could find a way to "crack" water without requiring a huge pile of energy, you could use that as a fuel.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Then there's whole business of identifying useful asteroids, which is non-trivial.
A lot of asteroids don't follow circular orbits, and changing from a circular orbit to an elliptical one (and back again) is not kind on delta-v requirements.
A partial way round that is to forget mining the asteroids "in situ", strap an engine (or whatever) to them, or nudge them in the right direction and move them somewhere more convenient - like an orbit.
Preferably not Earth orbit thanks though....

[Autumnleaf]

If this was really a good idea they would have mined the moon already. I'm with EdR.

[kronique]

You mean there are others besides google/james camerone in this? What's with the space rush?

Its one of the best things i've heard in a while... Also scary. How will humans go about it this time though? Whenever we find some bomb alternative resource , instead of being efficient, we consume more of everything. We'll become a metal-consuming blob... oh well I guess anything for space colonies.


We'd have it made in terms of metals. For the rest of our human existence. Thats a massive investment for anybody, I'm shocked more than anything. =o!

[Polymath20]

	Originally Posted by Autumnleaf To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If this was really a good idea they would have mined the moon already. I'm with EdR.

Wrong. The cost/benefit balance isn't right yet. Considering we just retired the first generation of reusable orbiters (not even proper spacecraft) we are still developing the technology.

The same thing was said about aircraft and helicopters.

Originally Posted by pip To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

You know. I'm really struggling to think of anything more repellant (and likely) to happen. Orbitals. Proper spacecraft should never see an atmosphere To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. But so long as we're using reaction engines most of the mass of any vehicle we build will have to be fuel simply to use it. Granted you can pretty efficiently change orbits and get virtually anywhere in the solar system with two engine firings and spend most of the journey coasting. But transfer orbits are fuel efficient rather than time efficient. The more direct the route you take, the more fuel you use. And with current technology there is a hard limit on how direct a route we can take as the mass of the fuel required itself can become great enough that no amount of engine could possibly move it in a useful manner. Basically, reaction engines are for fine maneuvering and course correction. Trying to use them get anywhere significant is like trying to drive down a motorway in a pedal cart, towing a huge trailer of food: There's technically nothing stopping you from doing it, but it's not gonna be pleasant, it's going to take forever and there's plenty of opportunity for things to go wrong. Now if we could find a way to "crack" water without requiring a huge pile of energy, you could use that as a fuel. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Then there's whole business of identifying useful asteroids, which is non-trivial. A lot of asteroids don't follow circular orbits, and changing from a circular orbit to an elliptical one (and back again) is not kind on delta-v requirements. A partial way round that is to forget mining the asteroids "in situ", strap an engine (or whatever) to them, or nudge them in the right direction and move them somewhere more convenient - like an orbit. Preferably not Earth orbit thanks though....

I think eventually we will see human populations who never (or rarely) set foot on a planet.

[Autumnleaf]

	Originally Posted by Polymath20 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Wrong. The cost/benefit balance isn't right yet. Considering we just retired the first generation of reusable orbiters (not even proper spacecraft) we are still developing the technology. The same thing was said about aircraft and helicopters.

Please explain why mining asteroids make sense and the moon doesn't.

[MrFlaneur]

	Originally Posted by Autumnleaf To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Please explain why mining asteroids make sense and the moon doesn't.

There is some sort of agreement that all the planets are for the use of every nation - if one nation objects to any other milking the moon dry, it can't go ahead. On the other hand, asteroids would be a free for all - harvesting an asteroid wouldn't make an ounce of difference to the dynamics of the earths ability to sustain life; milking the moon would - what if the moon was mined and it collapsed? You wouldn't have that scenario with a random asteroid.

[Polymath20]

	Originally Posted by Autumnleaf To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Please explain why mining asteroids make sense and the moon doesn't.

Different materials are easily accessible on both bodies. Mining both makes sense once we overcome some technical hurdles.

Once you're in orbit, it is pretty much equally difficult to get to the moon or an asteroid. Most of the journey is done by coasting.

If we had an effective way to use He3, the demand for He3 from the moon would definitely merit a mining operation. I think that it is valued at about $3 billion/ton, but presently the demand isn't there.

Some asteroids likely contain useful materials that are rare on the surface of the earth - even if they only contain basic materials like iron and carbon, they are already in space, which makes them more accessible for building things in space. Once again, the demand isn't there yet because we don't have much of a persistent presence in space.

[Aronnax]

Asteroid mining isn't really that "out there". You can find minerals that are rare on earth in large quantities in asteroids. We've already developed similar technology for approaching and landing on asteroids with the Deep Impact and NEAR Shoemaker Probes.

It doesn't require reusable orbiters to bring materials back down. It's easy to get back down to the bottom of a gravity well. Attach a drag chute, calculate where you want the payload to end up and give it a push. Asteroids are more feasible than the moon since there's no (significant) gravity well to escape and asteroids have higher concentrations of minerals that are in demand now (opposed to He3 which might be useful... someday). There's also the advantage of using extracted materials to assemble more complex systems in space to circumvent the cost of lifting things out of earth's gravity well.

The "miner" doesn't need to be a human, the task is perfect for robots for multiple reasons. Exploration and similar kinds of technological heavy lifting doesn't attract investors, the duration to see their ROI is too long and the risk is too high. However, this is the kind of space project the private sector will invest in. Most of the R&D has already been taken care of by the public sector and the returns are potentially quite high.

[JTG]

I see patent trolling as a pretty severe problem these days.

I thought encouraging innovation (seeing to it that somebody is rewarded for their inventions/products/etc) was the whole point of the patent system. When people are thinking up all kinds of possibilities just to patent them and sue anybody who tries to do it, that seems to me to be anti-progress and anti-innovation.

While i'm sure the system is broken in this respect, i really have no clue about how to fix it, other than just to throw it out, but that route poses its own problems.

[INTJRyan]

Originally Posted by JTG To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I see patent trolling as a pretty severe problem these days. I thought encouraging innovation (seeing to it that somebody is rewarded for their inventions/products/etc) was the whole point of the patent system. When people are thinking up all kinds of possibilities just to patent them and sue anybody who tries to do it, that seems to me to be anti-progress and anti-innovation. While i'm sure the system is broken in this respect, i really have no clue about how to fix it, other than just to throw it out, but that route poses its own problems.

Require the patented product to be used in the stream of commerce within a certain time frame or the patent expires. BTW, what does this have to do with the thread topic?

[SirJac]

I kind of see it as more of pursuing a childhood dream move rather then any real expectation to make a profit. While astroids are likely rich with rare eath metals, the costs associated with actually getting them to market will still far exceed the actual market value of the ore itself. On the other hand, developing the ability to mine and refine ore in space could significantly reduce the costs of future space stations, since it would reduce the amount of material needed to be brought up from earth's surface to build them.

[MechanicalSun]

Originally Posted by MrFlaneur To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

whadyathink? I think it's very interesting (technically), and of great benefit, but at the same time i'm worried about the people who are investing in it and their intentions. Basically, these people - Larry Page and Eric Schmidt, Charles Simonyi, Peter Diamandis et al - are all patent whores. They are making a great effort to control and define the nascent private space industry, they will patent all the appropriate technology and then lobby their respective governments for monopolistic control of all the galaxies mineral reserves,locking everyone else out. I'm a bit of a Trekky so i'm rather naive in believing that we should strive to reason and understand rather than just sucking the wealth out of everything. Thoughts? Discuss.

Isaac Asimov <3.

I think it's the natural step of our cultural/technological/social evolution. I see it with great expectations, in the same way as a with a possible widespread use of
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
(parallel paths but, if successful would balance each other).

The implications of this are IMMENSEand would affect, therefore, every single aspect of current way of living: Technology-science(materials,computing, etc), Economic model, Social(expansion of human reign to space).

So excited!
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
. However, at the same time, I think one has to be extremely observant with the management/control of this projects and the intentions behind.

Time to ask for legislation concerning Extra-terrestrial Grounds Ownership!

*preparing projects for intelligent form of life design UNDER Outter Space Conditions*
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[thod]

	It's easy to get back down to the bottom of a gravity well. Attach a drag chute, calculate where you want the payload to end up and give it a push.

Forget the drag chute. There are several cities I don't like much.

[Bioplasmoid]

Firstly I would second what Polymath20 has pointed out, namely the lack of heavy mass moving capacity and cost of the current known space propulsion technologies. It might be better to use such materials for in-space construction of an earth tether transit system as part of a new space station complex. If you had a continuous feed system via multiple temporary or permanent tether grids (think vertical conveyer belts) you could break the problem into small pieces - so to speak.

Expanding on this idea, it seems obvious that a continuous cable laying approach could be used where a geostationary metals refinery platform could melt,refine,and cast various metals into continuously flowing metal cabling used as a transit medium to get it down to earth. Put very simply the cable dangles all the way from space into a specially constructed drop region where it coils in a pile. Gas emissions from the refinery plant could provide continuous thrust to oppose the vast weight that the cable would have on the space platform.

[Polymath20]

Originally Posted by Bioplasmoid To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Firstly I would second what Polymath20 has pointed out, namely the lack of heavy mass moving capacity and cost of the current known space propulsion technologies. It might be better to use such materials for in-space construction of an earth tether transit system as part of a new space station complex. If you had a continuous feed system via multiple temporary or permanent tether grids (think vertical conveyer belts) you could break the problem into small pieces - so to speak. Expanding on this idea, it seems obvious that a continuous cable laying approach could be used where a geostationary metals refinery platform could melt,refine,and cast various metals into continuously flowing metal cabling used as a transit medium to get it down to earth. Put very simply the cable dangles all the way from space into a specially constructed drop region where it coils in a pile. Gas emissions from the refinery plant could provide continuous thrust to oppose the vast weight that the cable would have on the space platform.

The problem is that the current materials are not strong enough and also light enough for the space elevator concept to work. In my opinion, for raw materials, a magnetic cannon may be more practical. You simply start at the ground, and calibrate the force to park a raw material into high orbit and then go retrieve it. You wouldn't be able to send anything other than metal or really strongly encased materials due to the high G forces, but that could at least save you some launch weight...

[powerplant]

Let us go forth and multiply consuming all resources as we go without any consideration for future impacts.

Humanity will move into space eventually, however there is nowhere near enough investment in the tech or infrastructure needed yet.

There are enough issues here to fix first.




You could start by getting the world economy properly sorted and then winding down the war machine and aiming for as much peace as possible which will allow for greater investment of money in other areas without denting the military budget. Although I imagine that is easy said than done.

[Vulture]

Originally Posted by powerplant To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Let us go forth and multiply consuming all resources as we go without any consideration for future impacts. Humanity will move into space eventually, however there is nowhere near enough investment in the tech or infrastructure needed yet. There are enough issues here to fix first. You could start by getting the world economy properly sorted and then winding down the war machine and aiming for as much peace as possible which will allow for greater investment of money in other areas without denting the military budget. Although I imagine that is easy said than done.

i disagree, strongly.

many of the world's problems are due to overcrowding, and limited resources. both can be alleviated by space mining, eventually leading to colonization.

edit: well, i don't really disagree. the sentiment and idea you present are ideals i agree with, however, space mining and eventual colonization would be a natural solution to many of our problems, more realistic than global kumbaya campfires.

[powerplant]

Originally Posted by Vulture To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

i disagree, strongly. many of the world's problems are due to overcrowding, and limited resources. both can be alleviated by space mining, eventually leading to colonization. edit: well, i don't really disagree. the sentiment and idea you present are ideals i agree with, however, space mining and eventual colonization would be a natural solution to many of our problems, more realistic than global kumbaya campfires.

Fair point, I do agree it would definitely help if we had space mining, a few years without any wars to free up a bit government investment wouldn't go amiss imo

[Polymath20]

Space vehicles have limited space and storage. Sustainability is mandatory.