Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space

Is Space Mining Feasible? 569

Posted by michael from the moving-dozers-through-the-shallow-lunar-mines dept.
Roland Piquepaille writes "There is a large amount of precious minerals on the Moon and Mars. Would it be feasible to bring these valuable materials back on Earth? Space.com says that mining specialists and space engineers, who gathered at the latest Space Resources Roundtable, think the answer is yes. But there are many issues to solve. The first one is to build a permanent base. Then, you have to live on space resources. The article looks at other issues, such as strategic and economic potentials, before examining legal concerns about working conditions and extraterrestrial resource ownership. As the article says about lawyers, it 'turns out you can't leave Earth without them.' This summary contains more details and a rendering of a possible commercial Lunar base."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Is Space Mining Feasible? More

Is Space Mining Feasible?

Comments Filter:
  • Just imagine all the cheese from the moon!

  • hurray! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 19, 2003 @04:07PM (#7514020)
    Who ever said we needed to go to have people? It seems with todays advancements in robitics it would be much more effecient to have robots controled by humans down on earth to set about the task of space mining. You also eliminate a large amount of problems with staining life outside of our atmosphere.

    Food for thought...
    • Or, better yet, you can get fully automated AI robots to do the mining. Just don't be surprised when, hundreds of years later, they destroy the Earth when they demand to meet their maker and we can't deliver. Maybe it'd help if we used stain-resistant paint this time.

  • An easy way to jumpstart space mining (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 19, 2003 @04:07PM (#7514024)
    Tell Bush there are weapons of mass destruction on Mars.

  • Another shot in the arm? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Coyote67 ( 220141 ) on Wednesday November 19, 2003 @04:07PM (#7514026) Homepage
    Maybe this will be the final push thats needed to get Nasa the funding it needs. I may be alone in thinking this, but I believe that Nasa is solely responsible for America being where it is today. Think about how many innovations came out of the space program. What Nasa does today fuels the industries of tomorrow.
    Or maybe I'm just asking to be modded as offtopic.
    • NASA was useful back in the days of the Apollo program. It's gone downhill ever since.

    • Re:Another shot in the arm? (Score:4, Funny)

      by stoolpigeon ( 454276 ) <bittercode@gmail> on Wednesday November 19, 2003 @04:18PM (#7514175) Homepage Journal
      "I believe that Nasa is solely responsible for America being where it is today."

      You're right. With NASA taking care of the native uprisings, inventing flight and defeating the Nazis - I've never understood why they don't get larger amounts of funding. Maybe it is because they have done so much with so little. The transcontinental railroad is one of my personal favorites in that great list of NASA accomplishments.

  • Great! (Score:2, Funny)

    by GregThePaladin ( 696772 )
    Another reason to spend meelions of dollars on something that might not even prove fruitful. Woohoo.
    • still cheaper than propping up asshole regimes and fighting wars that may or may not reduce terrorism and allow cheaper resources!

    • Re:Great! (Score:2, Insightful)

      by isorox ( 205688 )
      like social security?

    • Re:Great! (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Paulrothrock ( 685079 )
      One average size asteroid is made up of trillions of dollars of metals alone, let alone things like iridium and other platinum-group metals that are rare on earth.

      Spending a billion for returns of in the tens of trillions seems like a pretty good investment to me

  • Re: Is Space Mining Feasible? (Score:5, Funny)

    by ozbird ( 127571 ) on Wednesday November 19, 2003 @04:08PM (#7514045)
    Why go shopping for asteroids when they deliver? Sure, the delivery schedule and drop-off point is unpredictable, but hey - free minerals!
    • Actually, you bring up a good point. Would it be cheaper to send people up to the asteroid to mine or, send automated equipment to return the asteroid to earth orbit (or even a controlled re-entry)?
  • Would it be feasible to bring these valuable materials back on Earth?
    No, but it is much more likely to be feasible to bring them to Low Earth Orbit (LEO), as the energy costs of raising mass from the moon are only 1/6th of the cost of raising the same mass from earth (before assumptions of fuel cost for terrestrial weather is taken into consideration)

    Building space stations from moon rock would be easier than building them from Earth rock.

    • Re:wrong question (Score:5, Informative)

      by Noren ( 605012 ) on Wednesday November 19, 2003 @04:28PM (#7514282)
      No, it's much less than 1/6. The moon's surface gravity is about 1/6 of that of the earth, but that doesn't directly translate into escape velocity.

      Earth's escape velocity is about 11km/sec [physlink.com], while the velocity required to go from the surface of the moon to the earth is only about 2.3km/sec [tiac.net]. Energy is proportional to velocity squared, so it works out to take only about 1/21 of the energy. (leaving the Earth/moon system entirely from the surface of the moon is somewhat more expensive, but still only about 1/16 of the energy cost as that needed from the Earth's surface.)

  • Why build a perm. base? Why not just focus on assembling Von Neumann machines - within the context of the moon's environment - at the macroscopic level (easier that way for now) and do it that way?

    I don't understand why humans have to be involved at all, we're far too needy, messy, and inefficient. I mean, if I was John Carmack, a Von Neumann-based mining operation would be my end goal . . .

  • Stability (Score:3, Interesting)

    by geekmetal ( 682313 ) <[moc.liamg] [ta] [yhtreekv]> on Wednesday November 19, 2003 @04:10PM (#7514060) Journal
    At present, the vast gulf of space prohibits access to these treasures, but a loosely knit group of like-minded experts believe that by tapping the rich resources of space, humanity's foothold on other worlds will be far more secure and long-lived.

    Wonder if the movement of mass between the planets by an unnatural force would have any consequence on the stability of the system? Just a question, wondering if there is a simple answer to that.

    • Re:Stability (Score:3, Interesting)

      by isorox ( 205688 )
      Depends on the mass. Move jupiter? That'd probably fsck things arround a *tiny* bit. Move a 5km asteroid, pah!
    • That's nothing compared to the problems that would start once space tourism becomes popular. Just think... the millions of visiting tourists will have to use the bathroom at least once. This is why it's vitally important to get a receipt.

    • Re:Stability - Do the math! (Score:4, Informative)

      by clausiam ( 609879 ) on Wednesday November 19, 2003 @04:24PM (#7514238)
      Mass of moon: 7.3x10^22 kg
      Assume we remove 1/100th of 1% of this which should not matter for system stability.

      This would still require us to remove 7,300,000 billion tons of material (that's 7 million billion tons).

      So in short: No.

      /Claus

  • Yes (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ErikZ ( 55491 ) on Wednesday November 19, 2003 @04:10PM (#7514063)

    But why would you want to? The cost of raw materials on the planet have been getting cheaper and cheaper. The only reason to do space mining is to reduce the costs of getting materials into orbit.

    Space mining to get materials for things you want to build in space is fantastic. No more soda can thin walls in your space stations.

  • Great news! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Trillan ( 597339 ) on Wednesday November 19, 2003 @04:10PM (#7514065) Homepage Journal

    As the article says about lawyers, it 'turns out you can't leave Earth without them.'

    Unlike Kennedy, no one speaks of "returning [them] safely to the Earth."

  • No (Score:3, Insightful)

    by plj ( 673710 ) on Wednesday November 19, 2003 @04:10PM (#7514068)
    Would it be feasible to carry minerals by aeroplanes? No, it wouldn't, unless they're extremely valuable minerals.

    Much less it's feasible to carry them from space, as space travelling is yet much more expensive than flying.

    • Re:No (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Carnildo ( 712617 ) on Wednesday November 19, 2003 @04:23PM (#7514227) Homepage Journal
      Once you get off the Earth, space travel is much cheaper than flying. Getting off the Earth takes high-power, politically-correct, inefficient engines firing over short periods of time. Shipping a million tons of iron from an asteroid to the Moon or to Earth orbit can use a slow, energy-efficient engine such as a solar sail, ion drive, or VASIMR engine. Moving personnel from place to place can be done using a politically-inexpedient, high-power method such as a nuclear-thermal engine -- since it's "not in my backyard", there'll be far fewer people blindly reacting to the word "nuclear".
    • You don't need to carry the things yourself. Just accelerate whatever you want to send in the right direction and let inertia and gravity do the job. If you aim right you may be able to send the packages into a near-Earth orbit, wherefrom you collect them using cheap vehicles and send them down in the orbital elevator.

      And before you start laughing, most of the ideas in the previous paragraph are almost out of the science fiction already. Before we manage to build a Lunar base or mine an asteroid we will pr
    • Depends upon where you're going to ship them. Shipping a bunch of rock to LEO via interplanetary is a whole bunch cheaper than shipping it up from Earth by shuttle - once you've got space industry bootstrapped.

  • We'll just need one of them big Corellian ships to do the transporting. Just as long as we get more than one or two companies doing the work, the last thing we want is a space-aged DeBeers.

  • Moonbase Alpha? It's been up and running for over 4 years now. It has an efficient transportation system in the Eagles for bringing in the minerals and an enlightened and effective leadership in Commander Koening. I often watch his efforts on my personal viewscreen.

  • new triangle trade (Score:5, Interesting)

    by kippy ( 416183 ) on Wednesday November 19, 2003 @04:13PM (#7514103)
    Dr. Robert Zubrin has suggested [slashdot.org] that there could be a new traingle trade with the astriod belt, Mars and Earth. Since it takes a lot less effort to get to the belt from Mars, a base there makes the most sense.

    Earth -> high tech to Mars
    Mars -> mining equiptment, low tech goods and food to the belt
    Astroid belt -> trillions in materials and H3 to Earth

    Yet another good reason to get NASA to make Mars a goal.

    • Re:new triangle trade (Score:4, Informative)

      by kippy ( 416183 ) on Wednesday November 19, 2003 @04:15PM (#7514135)
      That link should have pointed here [nw.net]

      Whoops
      • I was going to make the comment that Earth doesn't necessarily need all that much metal. Then I realized that, if it's cheap enough, it will make its own market. (Although with current cost-to-orbit, it's probably worth more in space than on earth.)

        I'm not sure I like the idea, though, of having speculation in Martian land at this point. Ownership, sure -- by homesteaders taking possession, with a limit on acres per homesteader. Yes, I know that Earth will be ill-equipped to handle any land disputes betwe

    • Re:new triangle trade (Score:5, Funny)

      by cpeterso ( 19082 ) on Wednesday November 19, 2003 @05:51PM (#7515029) Homepage

      how are we supposed to create a trade triangle with Mars and the asteroid belt? NOBODY LIVES THERE! With whom are we going to trade? This is not TraderWars.

  • Well sure it is. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by FreeLinux ( 555387 )
    America spent what, 2-3 billion dollars to bring a hundred pound of rocks back from the moon. I'm sure they could do the same for Mars, given 50-60 billion dollars. So it's been proven that it is technically feasible. It has also been proven that it is not economically feasible.

  • Why so much concern for Earth? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ikewillis ( 586793 ) on Wednesday November 19, 2003 @04:16PM (#7514142) Homepage
    Resource collection from the moon or Mars is certainly possible, but it would make considerably more sense to use the materials mined/collected to help subsidize the operations which would be necessary for such mining/resource collection to begin with, such as the recently discussed plans to construct two large photovoltaic arrays on opposite sides of the moon and beam the power back to earth via microwaves.
  • ... but bringing large amounts of mass onto the Earth WILL change its orbit. Not that I read the article (in typical slashdot fashion), but if they expect to bring a lot of material here, they had better plan on moving a lot of material out there too.
    • Summary orbit of moon:earth set will remain untouched. And because earth mass increases, moon mass decreases, the effects like ocean level changes will remain untouched. Bringing material from Mars will lenghten Earth orbit, decreasing global temperature - just go on with global warming to counterballance. Or export excess water from ocean level rise - will surely be needed if you plan growing plants to provide local food and oxygen.

      Plus assume supereffective space lift, 1 ton/s, how much time to change ea

  • Moon mining no, asteroid mining yes (Score:5, Interesting)

    by amightywind ( 691887 ) on Wednesday November 19, 2003 @04:18PM (#7514164) Journal

    Mining the moon or Mars makes a lot less sense than mining asteroids for lots of reasons.

    • Near earth asteroids have widely varying compositions. Some are entirely metallic with high concentrations of valuable strategic metals. The moon and Mars have relatively metal poor surfaces in comparison.
    • Asteroids are accessable. IT requires far less energy to travel to and from Earth and an asteroid that the moon or mars. This should make it less expensive to transport mined materials back to earth.
    • Polical reasons. If China unilaterally set up shop on the moon for mining, the rest of the world would be rightly up in arms. If they grabbed an asteroid who would care? (It might even assuage their anger over losing Taiwan!)
    • There are lots of asteroids but 1 moon and 1 Mars. You can trash thousands of asteroids and no one would care. Because of the lack of significant erosion on the Moon or Mars any mining activity will quickly and irreversably mar the surface. I would argue that the scientific and aesthetic value of a minimally disturbed planetary surface would be worth more in the long run.

  • "You have to live on space resources..." (Score:3, Insightful)

    by *weasel ( 174362 ) on Wednesday November 19, 2003 @04:20PM (#7514190)
    sure, if we sent humans. but why not send machines?

    the only question left in human space exploration - is do we really need to send -humans- into space?

    and the answer to that is currently no. there is nothing in space, aside from studying the effects of spacefaring life on human physiology that couldn't be done (and more efficiently and cheaper) from the ground via robots and drones.
    (no food or water requirements, no downtime for sleep, no heating requirements, no oxygen requirements, etc)

    studying the effects of spacefaring life on human physiology is made nearly moot by those same automated and remote agents.

    humans don't need to leave earth until it is necessary for either population dispersal (to mitigate the effects of a 'killer-asteroid' on our species), pure recreation, or should communication between Earth and our remote explorers be too slow for planning to result in effective utilization.

    i think the best possible space program will have the first manned human space flight to Mars - ending with the successful automated landing at a fully-constructed, tested, and verified human-friendly space station -- completed ahead of time fully by machines launched in advance.
    • humans don't need to leave earth until it is necessary for either population dispersal (to mitigate the effects of a 'killer-asteroid' on our species), pure recreation, or should communication between Earth and our remote explorers be too slow for planning to result in effective utilization.

      One more reason (not necessarily applicable on the topic): Unhandled exception. Some malfunction/damage/problem with equipment where any self-diagnostics or automated diagnostics fails and either you send out a new dev
  • Is it just me or the first astronaut in this picture [space.com] is likelly telling the other about the size of that fish he caught and let go? ;)
  • Stephen Baxter's book [amazon.com] has a nice account of the problems involved in trying to mine an asteroid. It also has many good ideas on how to push Nasa and the lawyers out of the way.

  • The key is cheap energy (Score:3, Insightful)

    by G4from128k ( 686170 ) on Wednesday November 19, 2003 @04:25PM (#7514246)
    Mining (with importation to the Earth) will only be feasible if energy is cheap enough. Otherwise the cost of delta-V (the delivery cost of getting the materials from the destination to the Earth) will make the materials not cost effective. It takes energy to boost materials from the Moon, move materials to low-Earth orbit, bring them down to Earth, etc.

    Platinum might be a very valuable metal (until the market is flooded by extra-planetary platinum), but I would expect that extraction costs would be extremely high in space and delivery costs would chew up any remaining profit (and not cover the amortized costs for R&D and initial launch of the space mining colony).

    The real value for space mining will be in self-sustaining colonies.
  • Just send a space ship. Blast big rocks into smaller rocks. Collect smaller rocks. A good model can be found here [atariage.com].

  • Space mining (Score:5, Insightful)

    by RayBender ( 525745 ) on Wednesday November 19, 2003 @04:49PM (#7514512) Homepage
    The moon could be made out of cocaine and it wouldn't make economic sense to go get it. At current prices, it's $20,000 to get a kilogram of mass into Earth orbit. You're talking hundreds of billions in investment to get a mining colony in the astroid belt. Taking the Apollo missions as a starting point, and saying you could be 100 times more efficient, it's still $100,000/kg material returned.

    The materials (iron, rare earths, iridium, nickel) that you could bring back simply do not command prices high enough to make it worthwhile - they're in the few dollars to few hundred dollars/kg range.

    This might change IF someone invented fusion that worked, and required He3. Then it might be worth it. Don't call me until that happens... and don't hold your breath, either.

  • how about convicts? (Score:5, Funny)

    by BigGerman ( 541312 ) on Wednesday November 19, 2003 @04:53PM (#7514562)
    In the great tradition of Western civilization - lets ship felons out!
    Surely a lot of enterpreneual people would gladly exchange 10 years in jail for 3 years of back breaking work mining Ceres or whatever for the chance of complete reabilitation and possible fortune.
    It is cheaper - less safety precautions needed. So NASA should just provide minimum transports and expertise and private prison management companies will do the rest.
    Along the same lines, let those who want to leave Earth. Freaks, sects, religious minorities, music downloaders.
    Just like America, Australia, etc. space will be initially populated by the official scam of the Earth.

  • Former astronaut thinks so. (Score:5, Informative)

    by mahulth ( 654977 ) on Wednesday November 19, 2003 @04:57PM (#7514590)
    I took a class called "Resources From Space" at University of Wisconsin, Madison, in 1998. It was taught by, among others, Harrison "Jack" Schmitt, who was the only scientist and last man on the moon (Apollo 17 - he was a geologist). He's now a fusion researcher and teaches this class along with other professors from geology, economics, physics, and nuclear engineers from the fusion technology institute at UW.

    The final impression left with me from that class was that, back in 1998, if we were to start up an initiative to mine the moon we would have to raise $215 billion and not see any return until the year 2015 (our focus was on He3, but I think this'll apply to most any moon mining operation). That's essentially a 20 year investment with huge risk, so finding either public or private funding to help launch the operation was the biggest obstacle. Technology was also obviouisly an issue, but the mantra "You can always count on technology to catch up to you" was definitely enforced since most of the profs were fusion researchers.

    Also, back then there was little competition in the public eye. My professors were aware that China was ahead of us in the push since they had government funding, but the competition existed only within a few small, scientific circles. No public awareness at all. We were looking at long-term energy-crisis solution, and this was a feasible answer. Our hopes may have been lofty, yet the projections realistic, at the time given the current sentiment. Currently there may be more eagerness by potential investors to get involved, but I'm unaware of a project of these proportions of both scale and risk that's been executed in the present day.

    BTW, the web site [wisc.edu] for the class (last offered fall -2001) is a very thorough and exciting read (esp. the Apollo 17 space mission from the second day). It's also a great resource for questions regarding everything involved in mining the moon.

  • Shoot the lawyers (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Corpus_Callosum ( 617295 ) on Wednesday November 19, 2003 @05:06PM (#7514682) Homepage
    As the article says about lawyers, it 'turns out you can't leave Earth without them.'

    In space, no one can hear a lawyer scream...

    Seriously, though, when we do get our collective asses off this planet, we will go through a period of wild west in space. Unless space is being policed by a government body (highly improbable for a LONG LONG time), property rights will be unenforcable. Physical access to celestial bodies will be all that is required to make claims. And claims will be impossible to enforce if that physical presence changes.

    Lawyers? They only make a difference if there are LAWS backed by POLICE. Take those two things away and a lawyer becomes a big mouth without teeth...

  • You may not be able to leave earth without lawyers (Score:3, Funny)

    by SmallFurryCreature ( 593017 ) on Wednesday November 19, 2003 @05:26PM (#7514842) Journal
    You may not be able to leave earth without lawyers but nothing is said about bring them back.

  • Is it feasible? No. (Score:3, Informative)

    by LoRider ( 16327 ) on Wednesday November 19, 2003 @05:33PM (#7514895) Homepage Journal
    We are still trying to figure out how to make money on the Internet. Some day it may be feasible to mine the moon, asteroids, or Mars but is it even possible at this point? The last time I heard the are having trouble just getting a few pounds of supplies to the space station. How could they possibly get tons of metal and rock back to Earth? I guess that's going the other way and they can just build a some sort of big barge type thing and just crash it in Earth and hope it lands in Nevada and not the bottom of the Pacific.

    As usual geeks are getting ahead of themselves. Space travel is not routine and until it becomes routine and therefore way cheaper there is no point in discussing how to make money from outer space. No point at all, I declare this convseration over. Good day sir.

  • They asked the wrong question. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Baldrson ( 78598 ) on Wednesday November 19, 2003 @05:47PM (#7514994) Homepage Journal
    There is a large amount of precious minerals on the Moon and Mars. Would it be feasible to bring these valuable materials back on Earth?

    ...is the wrong question.

    Is the surface of a planet really the right place for expanding technological civilization?

    ...is the right question. [aol.com]

  • The UN has laws regarding outer space (Score:5, Informative)

    by ElGanzoLoco ( 642888 ) on Wednesday November 19, 2003 @06:04PM (#7515218) Homepage
    Some very interesting stuff on the UN Office for Outer space affairs' website:
    here [unvienna.org]

    Interesting blurbs:

    1 Outer space is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means

    The thinking being, "it's everybody's good, so the lunar and martian surface -and all other planets for that matter- can't be anybody's property".
    I think they also ban the commercial appropriation (selling / buying) of land on outer space.

    The UN body also states:
    2 "the exploration and use of outer space shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries and shall be the province of all mankind"
    Does that mean that if you start mining the moon, you have to redistribute your profit to all the other countries?

    but also states:
    3 "outer space shall be free for exploration and use by all States"
    so you *do* have a right to mine the moon...

    and (interesting stuff):
    4 "States shall avoid harmful contamination of space and celestial bodies."
    Which means you're not supposed to pollute the planet you're mining (does that mean bringing back toxic waste on earth, or putting it in orbit?)

    Hmm... the countries that signed these treaties are legally bound by them, so things could get messy :p

    • UN? Legally Bound? Give me a break. The only "binds" on those treaties is peer pressure from other countries. Treaties are pieces of paper with flowery words on them unless someone is willing to enforce them. Trust me, as soon as a country figures out how to make a significant amount of money by owning space resources, those words will go right out the window. International Law is a nice phrase that makes people feel good, and it is useful for settling things that people are willing to fight over, bu

  • Minerals are heavy, people (Score:4, Insightful)

    by popo ( 107611 ) on Wednesday November 19, 2003 @06:15PM (#7515324) Homepage

    The value-per-pound of minerals (even gold) exceeds the cost-of-launch-transport-and-reentry-per-pound.

    Or in formulaic terms (V/W) > (CLTR/W)
    (where W is weight)

    Thus we have the inherent problem of space mining.

    Basically the problem is that 'gold' is either too heavy, or not valuable enough -- depending on how you look at it.

    However... if we were talking about 'spice' from Arrakis, or 'gold pressed latinum'... or 'Droids' even... then the whole space trading would totally make sense.

    (of course)

  • Economics, Economics, Economics (Score:4, Interesting)

    by EvilTwinSkippy ( 112490 ) <`moc.coyote' `ta' `adoy'> on Wednesday November 19, 2003 @06:23PM (#7515414) Homepage Journal
    Folks we are all forgetting supply and demand.

    If we suddenly truck in tons of precious metals from space, and whet our appetite for them, the cease becomming precious. Whoever mines space will have a momentary blip of profit before the costs of spacetravel exceed the newly lowered price of the materials.

    The reason we don't use the gold standard anymore is in part to prevent booms and busts in our currency caused by people flooding the market with new sources of gold. (The american dollar took a bath after the California and the Yukon gold rushes.)

    So just forget about any long-term sustainable industries built on dragging what are presently exotic materials to Earth from space.

  • Well Finally...... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Geek of Tech ( 678002 ) on Wednesday November 19, 2003 @07:08PM (#7515844) Homepage Journal
    I'll be able to power my Naquada generator....

  • it will be feasible soon enuf (Score:3)

    by cdn-programmer ( 468978 ) <terrNO@SPAMterralogic.net> on Wednesday November 19, 2003 @09:02PM (#7516723)
    We need a couple technologies IMHO. Right around the corner we have hyperjet engine technology. With this we might be able to cut the lift wieght of a rocket literally in 1/2. This will greatly increase payload efficiency which means transporting mining equipment into space will be practical... depending on the price of course.

    Next is the issue of energy. Space is just FULL of real cheap energy... which means that practically any old chunk of rock can be considered an ore.

    Now... I think what is most likely is that space will be used first to collect energy. I would expect this to be underway before 2020 and it will coincide with a major energy crisis that should be well underway within a few years.

    In the longer term, I expect that people will build large cylinderical habitats and live in them. In fact, this might start by 2020 as well. One way to do it is to use a mass driver to fire moon rocks to a catcher that flips them into a solar furnace. Another way is to pop over to the asteroid belt.

    The habitat itself can have a metal shell - possible several feet thick with slag then rock then soil on the inside. O2 comes from the rock itself and so does the H2 in order to produce water.

    After the first one is built... then we really do have a space based technology and people will really migrate to space on a more or less permanent basis. Once people can live in sapce and produce their own food and energy then earth will become the old country.

    Eventually I expect there will be an exodus into space. Once the population in space reaches a threashold level and the technology is proven, then I figure a war will break out, just as there was a war between the USA and Britain. The Space inhabitants will probably become resentful of trying to support the burgeoning masses on mined out earth. Given they have a natural advantage of being able to basically drops rocks down a gravity well...

    well the war will be short and one sided and planet earth will lose. At this point man will basically probably stay in space and look at the earth as we look at the moon today.

    So much for daydreaming eh?
  • There are 2 places that the end results (processed ore) can go: Earth or space. Earth's enormous gravity well demarcates that ... anything from low Earth orbit (LEO) upward is essentially the same, since LEO requires a velocity of about 5 miles a second to maintain.

    If it's Earth, you'd have to figure out how to (1) get the material there, and (2) down to the surface. Present technology can get it there with mass drivers, even off the surface of the Moon (and especially so, I'd figure). And after that, economy dictates that it be hard landed. Thus means you package the materials into ablative shells to make it as cheap as possible, and then let them smack into a desert area. After some time of bombardment, ground crews can venture out into the shattered zone and dig it up to collect the goods. Admittedly, it'll take some hard thinking and good engineering to come up with a way to sling the stuff down Earth's energy well without it coming in like a meteor; perhaps slingshot-then-return, perhaps atmospheric-skip-n-drag, perhaps even a mass catcher in Earth orbit. But these are engineering details.

    The question is, is this kind of thing worth it for materials X, Y and Z? Once the costs of space development are amortized, I suspect that few materials will be appealing. This strongly suggests materials of a more processed nature, even products, which can be made in a space environment cheaper than on Earth. Arguably, with microgravity, some things can't be made on Earth at all, hence uniqueness can ensure a market.

    As for space ... you have no choice but use materials mined in space in order to live in space. Hence, the cost is irrelevent. Either you mine the Lunar regolith and asteroids for your air, or you will die. There might be possibilities for mining Earth's outer atmosphere, I'd imagine ... but you'd have to get close to the Earth for that, and the closer you get, the more fuel you'll need to get away with your payload.

    Lunar regolith is great raw ore, in a good environment for smelting it. It contains all the stuff that you'd need to build a civilization on the Moon and in Cislunar space (even out to the asteroids, but once in the asteroids you will probably find it more economical to mine local resources). Regolith is finely pulverized from billions of years of bombardment, and not only yields aluminum, iron, silicon, magnesium and titanium, but oxygen as well. The downside to the moon is that it has almost no volatiles like nitrogen and hydrogen, and of course there's our old friend carbon. These must be imported (luckily, carbon imports for air can be tiny, although direct usage for plants and animals will be sizeable) ... and as soon as possible you have to stop importing them from Earth since even that's too expensive, and start exploiting them from asteroidal sources. It also desn't seem to make economic sense to ship water to the Moon, since your cargo will be 89% oxygen, which is what the Moon has plenty of anyway (locked up in the rocks).

    (According to an online source [encyclopedia.com], the air we breathe has the essential component of about 20% O2. See here [stemnet.nf.ca] and here [k12.ny.us] for Human and plant respiration respectively. The roughly 80% nitrogen component of air is an inert portion ... divers have done without it by substituting helium. But helium is still a volatile on the moon. And plants raised in the Lunar facilities will need nitrogen for their root systems. So, nitrogen will still need to be imported in significant quantities.)

    Reaching for Mars without a Earth-orbit station and Lunar station is very foolish. It'll be another Apollo program that will result in a lot of abandoned equipment and horri

Slashdot Top Deals

Too much is not enough.

Close