Luxembourg’s asteroid mining plan
February 3, 2016 5:42 AM Subscribe
The Luxembourg Ministry of the Economy announced the first government initiative in Europe to develop a legal and regulatory framework on the future ownership of minerals extracted from objects in space, such as asteroids.
Outer Space Indies Trading Company
posted by elbie at 6:16 AM on February 3, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by elbie at 6:16 AM on February 3, 2016 [9 favorites]
The real money is in extracting volatiles and using them to refuel space craft.
It's something like $25000 per kg to boost from earth to a transfer orbit.
So any stuff you don't have to take saves you a lot of cash.
Platinum is currently at about the same price per KG but that will fall if you bring back enough of it to pay for thr missions, whereas the mass price to orbit won't.
posted by Just this guy, y'know at 6:17 AM on February 3, 2016 [5 favorites]
It's something like $25000 per kg to boost from earth to a transfer orbit.
So any stuff you don't have to take saves you a lot of cash.
Platinum is currently at about the same price per KG but that will fall if you bring back enough of it to pay for thr missions, whereas the mass price to orbit won't.
posted by Just this guy, y'know at 6:17 AM on February 3, 2016 [5 favorites]
Deep Space Industries (DSI), a Californian asteroid mining firm,
Sometimes I love living in the future.
posted by Rock Steady at 6:36 AM on February 3, 2016 [5 favorites]
Sometimes I love living in the future.
posted by Rock Steady at 6:36 AM on February 3, 2016 [5 favorites]
Perhaps they were inspired by the 1963 documentary about another small European nation’s space mission…
In the BBC news article about this announcement, I was struck by the following:
In the BBC news article about this announcement, I was struck by the following:
Last year, their [Luxembourg’s] activities were bolstered by US legislation that sought to cement the rights of any American operations that started to exploit asteroids.
Some commentators at the time suggested this legislation might contravene the UN's Outer Space Treaty, signed in 1967. But Luxembourg's economic minister, Etienne Schneider, is relaxed about the move.
"These rules prohibit the appropriation of space and celestial bodies but they do not exclude the appropriation of materials which can be found there," he said.
"Roughly, the situation is equivalent to the rights of a trawler in international waters. Fishermen own the fish they catch but they do not own the ocean."posted by misteraitch at 6:41 AM on February 3, 2016
Evidently there's trillions of dollars in materials just floating around out there. Whoever figures how to get all those sweet precious minerals outta the asteroids and return them to Earth is going to make a killing.
That part's easy, you just need a little nudge. Getting something usable after it lands is something else entirely. Metal is heavy. Getting it back to the surface of the earth in any kind of volume without creating a Tunguska event in the process is probably a bit tricky.
Also I imagine the price of platinum might drop a bit once you add 90 million tons of it to the market.
posted by leotrotsky at 6:42 AM on February 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
That part's easy, you just need a little nudge. Getting something usable after it lands is something else entirely. Metal is heavy. Getting it back to the surface of the earth in any kind of volume without creating a Tunguska event in the process is probably a bit tricky.
Also I imagine the price of platinum might drop a bit once you add 90 million tons of it to the market.
posted by leotrotsky at 6:42 AM on February 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
The miners will be in a De Beers situation, yes.
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 6:43 AM on February 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 6:43 AM on February 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
The real money is in extracting volatiles and using them to refuel space craft.
It's something like $25000 per kg to boost from earth to a transfer orbit.
So any stuff you don't have to take saves you a lot of cash.
Yeah, not being in a gravity well is priceless.
posted by leotrotsky at 6:43 AM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
It's something like $25000 per kg to boost from earth to a transfer orbit.
So any stuff you don't have to take saves you a lot of cash.
Yeah, not being in a gravity well is priceless.
posted by leotrotsky at 6:43 AM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
That part's easy, you just need a little nudge. Getting something usable after it lands is something else entirely. Metal is heavy. Getting it back to the surface of the earth in any kind of volume without creating a Tunguska event in the process is probably a bit tricky.
Maybe we could land them on the moon, and process there? I like this game!
posted by _Synesthesia_ at 6:44 AM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
Maybe we could land them on the moon, and process there? I like this game!
posted by _Synesthesia_ at 6:44 AM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
Maybe we could land them on the moon, and process there? I like this game!
We'd need to do something about the toxic regolith, then.
posted by leotrotsky at 6:49 AM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
We'd need to do something about the toxic regolith, then.
posted by leotrotsky at 6:49 AM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
Mine the ore in situ, smelt it to a pure form and then bubble any spare gasses you might have lying around through it to create a metal foam.
Melt that into a large cylinder with a huge flat head and maybe a twist on the side.
Drop over the ocean.
The big flat head aerobrakes the whole thing (the twist in it makes it spin for stability)
With a flat enough profile you can get terminal velocity pretty low, and it doesn't matter if you burn up a bunch of it on re-entry.
The whole plonks down into the ocean and sits there floating waiting for retrieval.
posted by Just this guy, y'know at 6:51 AM on February 3, 2016 [4 favorites]
Melt that into a large cylinder with a huge flat head and maybe a twist on the side.
Drop over the ocean.
The big flat head aerobrakes the whole thing (the twist in it makes it spin for stability)
With a flat enough profile you can get terminal velocity pretty low, and it doesn't matter if you burn up a bunch of it on re-entry.
The whole plonks down into the ocean and sits there floating waiting for retrieval.
posted by Just this guy, y'know at 6:51 AM on February 3, 2016 [4 favorites]
"These rules prohibit the appropriation of space and celestial bodies but they do not exclude the appropriation of materials which can be found there," he said.
What does he think celestial bodies are, if not composed of "materials which can be found there"?
"Tom said I can't take his jar of peanut butter, but he didn't say I can't take the peanut butter which can be found inside the jar!"
posted by explosion at 6:55 AM on February 3, 2016 [6 favorites]
What does he think celestial bodies are, if not composed of "materials which can be found there"?
"Tom said I can't take his jar of peanut butter, but he didn't say I can't take the peanut butter which can be found inside the jar!"
posted by explosion at 6:55 AM on February 3, 2016 [6 favorites]
The whole plonks down into the ocean and sits there floating waiting for retrieval pirates.
posted by Rock Steady at 7:07 AM on February 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Rock Steady at 7:07 AM on February 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
That's a pretty good analogy I think.
The rules say you can't go into the cupboard andplant a flag stick a label with your name on it on the peanut butter, but they don't say that you can't have a bit of Tom's peanut butter on some toast.
Now if Tom finds he keeps running out of peanut butter those rules might change, but you'd have to have a house meeting and then everyone would get distracted by the whole Steve annexing part of Jeff's room issue that's been going on.
posted by Just this guy, y'know at 7:08 AM on February 3, 2016 [8 favorites]
The rules say you can't go into the cupboard and
Now if Tom finds he keeps running out of peanut butter those rules might change, but you'd have to have a house meeting and then everyone would get distracted by the whole Steve annexing part of Jeff's room issue that's been going on.
posted by Just this guy, y'know at 7:08 AM on February 3, 2016 [8 favorites]
Are we sure cstross hasn't taken over Luxembourg somehow?
posted by Dr Dracator at 7:09 AM on February 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Dr Dracator at 7:09 AM on February 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
If cstross took over Luxembourg, would that be such a bad thing?
posted by adept256 at 7:14 AM on February 3, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by adept256 at 7:14 AM on February 3, 2016 [6 favorites]
That part's easy, you just need a little nudge. Getting something usable after it lands is something else entirely. Metal is heavy. Getting it back to the surface of the earth in any kind of volume without creating a Tunguska event in the process is probably a bit tricky.
If you have tons and tons of this in space you want to lower safely and a tons and tons of ships, fuel, &c. you want to get into space, could you create some sort of massive balance scale where you use the metals you're bringing back to hoist the ships up and the weight of the ships to slow down the materials coming to earth? I mean maybe not, I'm sure people who know WAY more about this than I do have thought of this (I took AP physics pass/fail in high school which is the extent of my qualifications), but if you've got an excess of potential energy and a bunch of stuff that needs a lot of kinetic energy it seems like it'd be pretty easy to turn that problem into an opportunity.
posted by Mrs. Pterodactyl at 7:17 AM on February 3, 2016
If you have tons and tons of this in space you want to lower safely and a tons and tons of ships, fuel, &c. you want to get into space, could you create some sort of massive balance scale where you use the metals you're bringing back to hoist the ships up and the weight of the ships to slow down the materials coming to earth? I mean maybe not, I'm sure people who know WAY more about this than I do have thought of this (I took AP physics pass/fail in high school which is the extent of my qualifications), but if you've got an excess of potential energy and a bunch of stuff that needs a lot of kinetic energy it seems like it'd be pretty easy to turn that problem into an opportunity.
posted by Mrs. Pterodactyl at 7:17 AM on February 3, 2016
If I was married to a pterodactyl, sure.
posted by adept256 at 7:22 AM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by adept256 at 7:22 AM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
could you create some sort of massive balance scale where you use the metals you're bringing back to hoist the ships up and the weight of the ships to slow down the materials coming to earth?
A space elevator would do that, but they're basically impossible. I wouldn't be surprised if there were other suggestions, although they'd probably all involve impossible materials.
posted by papercrane at 7:24 AM on February 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
A space elevator would do that, but they're basically impossible. I wouldn't be surprised if there were other suggestions, although they'd probably all involve impossible materials.
posted by papercrane at 7:24 AM on February 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
If I was married to a pterodactyl, sure.
Yes we are notable engineering geniuses.
posted by Mrs. Pterodactyl at 7:24 AM on February 3, 2016 [6 favorites]
Yes we are notable engineering geniuses.
posted by Mrs. Pterodactyl at 7:24 AM on February 3, 2016 [6 favorites]
The International Institute of Space Law has an interesting position paper [PDF] on this subject.
posted by Cash4Lead at 7:25 AM on February 3, 2016
posted by Cash4Lead at 7:25 AM on February 3, 2016
Getting it back to the surface of the earth in any kind of volume without creating a Tunguska event in the process is probably a bit tricky.
The tricky part will be keeping it from being an externality that gets socialized.
posted by srboisvert at 7:27 AM on February 3, 2016 [8 favorites]
The tricky part will be keeping it from being an externality that gets socialized.
posted by srboisvert at 7:27 AM on February 3, 2016 [8 favorites]
Evidently there's trillions of dollars in materials just floating around out there. Whoever figures how to get all those sweet precious minerals outta the asteroids and return them to Earth is going to make a killing.
Umm.
Yeah, see, there's this little problem. You bring a few million tonnes of platinum onto the market at once, and platinum becomes literally as cheap as sand -- that is, the real cost of it will be actually moving it to wherever you need it.
The reason there are trillions of dollars of materials out there is that they are *out there* and thus, off the market, making the amount we have here worth a lot more. Bring those materials onto the market, and they become, well, not valuable.
It works *if* you are the only one bringing the asteroid onto market, you can sell for 10% off the current market, and selling at that price covers your costs. Monopolies generally win automatically. The moment another company brings another asteroid onto the market? You are sunk, because they'll undercut you, you'll undercut them, rapidly driving the price down to the cost line, and if that cost is over the cost of mining that material on the ground, you get nothing -- and well, sucks to be you, having spent all that money getting the first asteroid mine.
The free market has many problems, but it has an almost uncanny sense on making money. There's a reason that commercial interests are completely uninterested in exploiting asteroids. There's no money to be made. That's why big launchers don't exist, no money to be made. The only thing in spaceflight that has proven to be anywhere near profitable is geostationary orbit. Even with that, a staggering fraction of launches are government -- either military, intelligence (which includes weather) or the few scraps we throw at science/exploration.
The only way it works is if you find something in space that is really useful, but cannot be found on earth. (See Larry Niven, Magnetic Monopoles.)
The real money is in extracting volatiles and using them to refuel space craft.
Chicken and egg. Why do you need to refuel spacecraft? If it's to go mine spacecraft fuel, the market is going to say "Well, don't build spacecraft and we won't have to pay for mining fuel." You need *some reason* to be out there, one that already makes money. Mining fuel isn't really a direct way to make money, it's a way to reduce the costs of being in space, which means if you've found a way to make money, then you'd make *more* money. But reaction mass itself? Not actually valuable. It's theoretically valuable in space because space is empty. Down here, the stuff is damn near free.
And if you figure a large spaceflight infrastructure, you have to assume that the cost of launching from Earth is going to come way down, and if you do that, the cost of getting fuel into orbit also comes way down. The one place where getting fuel in space makes a lot of sense is for getting the fuel to get *back* to Earth so you don't have to haul that fuel out with you, which makes your payload fraction much higher. That's why Phobos is important to a Mars Colony -- it's where they'll get the reaction mass they need for the ships that came from Earth to go back to Earth to get more stuff and/or colonists. Unlike Earth, cheap reaction mass doesn't cover 7/10th of the surface of Mars.
Oh, one last bit. What do you call a company that moves multi-million tonne asteroids into LEO? You call them "master" because they can literally destroy life on Earth. "Sorry, did I drop that?" Even if you don't go there, if you have the ability to move tons of material to Earth, you are a de factor nuclear power. You can wipe out cities at will.
Do you really trust you friendly neighborhood free market capitalist with that power?
posted by eriko at 7:28 AM on February 3, 2016 [25 favorites]
Umm.
Yeah, see, there's this little problem. You bring a few million tonnes of platinum onto the market at once, and platinum becomes literally as cheap as sand -- that is, the real cost of it will be actually moving it to wherever you need it.
The reason there are trillions of dollars of materials out there is that they are *out there* and thus, off the market, making the amount we have here worth a lot more. Bring those materials onto the market, and they become, well, not valuable.
It works *if* you are the only one bringing the asteroid onto market, you can sell for 10% off the current market, and selling at that price covers your costs. Monopolies generally win automatically. The moment another company brings another asteroid onto the market? You are sunk, because they'll undercut you, you'll undercut them, rapidly driving the price down to the cost line, and if that cost is over the cost of mining that material on the ground, you get nothing -- and well, sucks to be you, having spent all that money getting the first asteroid mine.
The free market has many problems, but it has an almost uncanny sense on making money. There's a reason that commercial interests are completely uninterested in exploiting asteroids. There's no money to be made. That's why big launchers don't exist, no money to be made. The only thing in spaceflight that has proven to be anywhere near profitable is geostationary orbit. Even with that, a staggering fraction of launches are government -- either military, intelligence (which includes weather) or the few scraps we throw at science/exploration.
The only way it works is if you find something in space that is really useful, but cannot be found on earth. (See Larry Niven, Magnetic Monopoles.)
The real money is in extracting volatiles and using them to refuel space craft.
Chicken and egg. Why do you need to refuel spacecraft? If it's to go mine spacecraft fuel, the market is going to say "Well, don't build spacecraft and we won't have to pay for mining fuel." You need *some reason* to be out there, one that already makes money. Mining fuel isn't really a direct way to make money, it's a way to reduce the costs of being in space, which means if you've found a way to make money, then you'd make *more* money. But reaction mass itself? Not actually valuable. It's theoretically valuable in space because space is empty. Down here, the stuff is damn near free.
And if you figure a large spaceflight infrastructure, you have to assume that the cost of launching from Earth is going to come way down, and if you do that, the cost of getting fuel into orbit also comes way down. The one place where getting fuel in space makes a lot of sense is for getting the fuel to get *back* to Earth so you don't have to haul that fuel out with you, which makes your payload fraction much higher. That's why Phobos is important to a Mars Colony -- it's where they'll get the reaction mass they need for the ships that came from Earth to go back to Earth to get more stuff and/or colonists. Unlike Earth, cheap reaction mass doesn't cover 7/10th of the surface of Mars.
Oh, one last bit. What do you call a company that moves multi-million tonne asteroids into LEO? You call them "master" because they can literally destroy life on Earth. "Sorry, did I drop that?" Even if you don't go there, if you have the ability to move tons of material to Earth, you are a de factor nuclear power. You can wipe out cities at will.
Do you really trust you friendly neighborhood free market capitalist with that power?
posted by eriko at 7:28 AM on February 3, 2016 [25 favorites]
Paul Allen was big on this for a while, but seems to have gone quiet, possibly because it turned out to be utterly insane.
posted by Artw at 7:28 AM on February 3, 2016
posted by Artw at 7:28 AM on February 3, 2016
Can we all join in a collective laugh at space law.?
posted by adept256 at 7:28 AM on February 3, 2016
posted by adept256 at 7:28 AM on February 3, 2016
We do put our stuff and occasionally people up in space, you know.
posted by Artw at 7:30 AM on February 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Artw at 7:30 AM on February 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
I wouldn't be surprised if there were other suggestions, although they'd probably all involve impossible materials.
My (also took-some-physics-classes qualifications) idea is, I wonder if you could make immense numbers of lightweight microscopic robots that in aggregate would be like a kind of foam, then make an immense Australia-sized space-touching mountainous pile of this foam floating in the Pacific Ocean, and have the foambots lift up an entire runway and launch vehicle together to the edge of space or beyond to reduce the energy requirements for getting into orbit. I don't know if it would actually be possible to construct and control robots with those properties in sufficient quantities but it seems like it wouldn't require the impossible tensile strength that more conventional space elevators do.
Can we all join in a collective laugh at space law.?
The Air Force Role In Developing International Outer Space Law (1999) by Delbert R. Terrill Jr., Colonel, USAFR, Air Force History and Museums Program
posted by XMLicious at 7:41 AM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
The SHEPHERD concept proposed by Bruce Damer and others addresses the fuel capture and gravity well issues. It may be pie in the sky, and I believe NASA took a pass on it, but it's still pretty interesting. The idea is to have a fleet of robotic ships that can encapsulate small asteroids and move them into lunar orbit where they can be worked on. Fuel is extracted from asteroids or comet fragments via the same encapsulation method. Here is Damer's Tedx talk.
posted by gimli at 7:46 AM on February 3, 2016
posted by gimli at 7:46 AM on February 3, 2016
XMLicious, I am happy to say that your continent-sized techno-Shoggoth might present some insurmountable engineering difficulties. Specifically, compression strength, powering the thing, heat dissipation, cost of manufacturing it, sourcing materials, and convincing the world to fund your protoplasmic blasphemy.
posted by The Gaffer at 7:51 AM on February 3, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by The Gaffer at 7:51 AM on February 3, 2016 [5 favorites]
You need *some reason* to be out there, one that already makes money.
Surely you can imagine some reason to go to space apart from to make money?
posted by Just this guy, y'know at 7:55 AM on February 3, 2016
Surely you can imagine some reason to go to space apart from to make money?
posted by Just this guy, y'know at 7:55 AM on February 3, 2016
At least one man takes space mining law seriously.
posted by Krulth at 7:56 AM on February 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Krulth at 7:56 AM on February 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
Yeah, see, there's this little problem. You bring a few million tonnes of platinum onto the market at once, and platinum becomes literally as cheap as sand -- that is, the real cost of it will be actually moving it to wherever you need it.
But platinum has actual utility, and is also pretty to look at - so that's a good thing, right? Unless you are a giant platinum-mining space conglomerate, that is.
posted by Dr Dracator at 7:57 AM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
But platinum has actual utility, and is also pretty to look at - so that's a good thing, right? Unless you are a giant platinum-mining space conglomerate, that is.
posted by Dr Dracator at 7:57 AM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
your continent-sized techno-Shoggoth might present some insurmountable engineering difficulties
Best episode of Shark Tank ever.
posted by Rock Steady at 7:58 AM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
Best episode of Shark Tank ever.
posted by Rock Steady at 7:58 AM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
I think it's not entirely far-fetched to think that, at some point in the next century, our need for certain rare minerals will outstrip out ability to obtain them on-planet through a combination of mining and recycling. This is particularly true if solar power really does go through the kind of boom that's being predicted in some quarters, because my understanding is that cutting edge solar panel designs all require minerals that are already quite rare and expensive. It's even more true if earthly politics happen to turn against rapacious strip-mining and the casual destruction of homes and habitats.
So, with that being the case, it's probably good that the people are already thinking about legal frameworks for stuff like asteroid mining, because it's exactly the sort of thing that could go from an impractical and unnecessary pipe dream to the backbone of the entire economy faster than you can say "Robert Heinlein". In fact, in my opinion, the most foolish thing we could do would be to wait until some mining company is launching rockets before we decide what the legal status of asteroid minerals is.
posted by tobascodagama at 7:59 AM on February 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
So, with that being the case, it's probably good that the people are already thinking about legal frameworks for stuff like asteroid mining, because it's exactly the sort of thing that could go from an impractical and unnecessary pipe dream to the backbone of the entire economy faster than you can say "Robert Heinlein". In fact, in my opinion, the most foolish thing we could do would be to wait until some mining company is launching rockets before we decide what the legal status of asteroid minerals is.
posted by tobascodagama at 7:59 AM on February 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
Bootstrapping problem. Once water does not need to be boosted and food is grown the marginal cost of a trip to space will begin to approach a first class ticket from London to Sydney.
Once there is quantities of reaction mass a constant acceleration trip to Mars becomes months rather than years, perhaps even weeks.
The platinum argument is just silly, for example there are enough diamonds in supply for everyone to wear a 2 carat ring for twenty bucks, but it's a controlled market, the engineers bringing back rare minerals will not be flooding the market.
We need machine shops and gardeners in orbit!!
posted by sammyo at 8:00 AM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
Once there is quantities of reaction mass a constant acceleration trip to Mars becomes months rather than years, perhaps even weeks.
The platinum argument is just silly, for example there are enough diamonds in supply for everyone to wear a 2 carat ring for twenty bucks, but it's a controlled market, the engineers bringing back rare minerals will not be flooding the market.
We need machine shops and gardeners in orbit!!
posted by sammyo at 8:00 AM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yeah, not being in a gravity well is priceless.
Except for the tendency of your atmosphere to float away....
posted by GenjiandProust at 8:01 AM on February 3, 2016
Except for the tendency of your atmosphere to float away....
posted by GenjiandProust at 8:01 AM on February 3, 2016
The more things you can manufacture in space (including food), the more viable any kind of space program can be.
Ideally the only things you ever want to be lifting from the surface are humans.
posted by Just this guy, y'know at 8:07 AM on February 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
Ideally the only things you ever want to be lifting from the surface are humans.
posted by Just this guy, y'know at 8:07 AM on February 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
Once there is quantities of reaction mass a constant acceleration trip to Mars becomes months rather than years, perhaps even weeks.
If you can accelerate at 1g (thus providing a comfortable earth like environment as a bonus , then flip round and decelerate at 1g it would take 3 days to get to Mars.
posted by Just this guy, y'know at 8:09 AM on February 3, 2016
If you can accelerate at 1g (thus providing a comfortable earth like environment as a bonus , then flip round and decelerate at 1g it would take 3 days to get to Mars.
posted by Just this guy, y'know at 8:09 AM on February 3, 2016
XMLicious, I am happy to say that your continent-sized techno-Shoggoth might present some insurmountable engineering difficulties. Specifically, compression strength, powering the thing, heat dissipation, cost of manufacturing it, sourcing materials, and convincing the world to fund your protoplasmic blasphemy.
Thanks; I did observe in my comment above that it may not be possible to construct, but the point is that it might not require materials with properties that would appear to violate fundamental properties of physics as we currently understand them like the tensile strength necessary in the material a space elevator would be made out of.
posted by XMLicious at 8:10 AM on February 3, 2016
Oh, one last bit. What do you call a company that moves multi-million tonne asteroids into LEO? You call them "master"
While there are real issues here we're a long way from the "belters revolt" scenario where a community hiding behind Ceres fights the earth forces. Everyone in the space community knows every detail of every mission to the millimeter. Once there is a community outside the atmosphere with resources to build out good telescopes, every single object bigger than a breadbox will be in a database and checked regularly. A rock big enough to be a weapon that changes course will be noticed long before it can be an issue. And given a ship with constant acceleration, getting to it to nudge the intersect orbit to miss will be "easy".
posted by sammyo at 8:20 AM on February 3, 2016
While there are real issues here we're a long way from the "belters revolt" scenario where a community hiding behind Ceres fights the earth forces. Everyone in the space community knows every detail of every mission to the millimeter. Once there is a community outside the atmosphere with resources to build out good telescopes, every single object bigger than a breadbox will be in a database and checked regularly. A rock big enough to be a weapon that changes course will be noticed long before it can be an issue. And given a ship with constant acceleration, getting to it to nudge the intersect orbit to miss will be "easy".
posted by sammyo at 8:20 AM on February 3, 2016
Surely you can imagine some reason to go to space apart from to make money?
Going into space is neat, but there's not much reason to do it, so where are you going to get the money to fund this?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 8:24 AM on February 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
Going into space is neat, but there's not much reason to do it, so where are you going to get the money to fund this?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 8:24 AM on February 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
XMLicious, I am happy to say that your continent-sized techno-Shoggoth might present some insurmountable engineering difficulties. Specifically, compression strength, powering the thing, heat dissipation, cost of manufacturing it, sourcing materials, and convincing the world to fund your protoplasmic blasphemy.
That's what the accompanying religion is for!
Praise the Techno-Shoggoth! All Hail His Mechanized Abomination!
posted by leotrotsky at 8:28 AM on February 3, 2016 [7 favorites]
That's what the accompanying religion is for!
Praise the Techno-Shoggoth! All Hail His Mechanized Abomination!
posted by leotrotsky at 8:28 AM on February 3, 2016 [7 favorites]
not much reason to do it
I'm sorry but comments like this just make me want to scream and make pejorative comments about the poster.
A few tiny satellites currently have been the biggest benefit to the ecology of the planet of almost anything to date. What if you had a university of earth scientists studying the world systems constantly? Forest fired could be identified in minutes. The entire ecosystem could be fine tuned.
Goes on and on to benefits to humanity (and animals) are probably not imaginable until we get there.
posted by sammyo at 8:32 AM on February 3, 2016 [5 favorites]
I'm sorry but comments like this just make me want to scream and make pejorative comments about the poster.
A few tiny satellites currently have been the biggest benefit to the ecology of the planet of almost anything to date. What if you had a university of earth scientists studying the world systems constantly? Forest fired could be identified in minutes. The entire ecosystem could be fine tuned.
Goes on and on to benefits to humanity (and animals) are probably not imaginable until we get there.
posted by sammyo at 8:32 AM on February 3, 2016 [5 favorites]
I think it's not entirely far-fetched to think that, at some point in the next century, our need for certain rare minerals will outstrip out ability to obtain them on-planet through a combination of mining and recycling.
Or we might decide that mining where there's a biosphere is too destructive.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:35 AM on February 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
Or we might decide that mining where there's a biosphere is too destructive.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:35 AM on February 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
I sometimes wonder if all the fairly premature "we need a regulatory system for when we start commercially exploiting the rest of space" rhetoric isn't a distraction from the reality of "we are rapidly making the only planet we can access for the foreseeable future uninhabitable" scenario, which will kind of render all those regulations moot. I mean, when the regular crisis of capitalism becomes "everyone dies," why sweat the details?
posted by GenjiandProust at 8:35 AM on February 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by GenjiandProust at 8:35 AM on February 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
"we are rapidly making the only planet we can access for the foreseeable future uninhabitable"
One way to help stop that is to find ways to get the resources we need without destroying our home.
posted by Sangermaine at 8:39 AM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
One way to help stop that is to find ways to get the resources we need without destroying our home.
posted by Sangermaine at 8:39 AM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
Oh and the folks that are using the word "trillions" are just thinking small.
posted by sammyo at 8:47 AM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by sammyo at 8:47 AM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
A few tiny satellites currently have been the biggest benefit to the ecology of the planet of almost anything to date. What if you had a university of earth scientists studying the world systems constantly? Forest fired could be identified in minutes. The entire ecosystem could be fine tuned.
To be clear, this is totally beneficial. But there's not many concrete reasons that will get governments to pony up the billions of dollars to go beyond Earth orbit. There's just not much out there for humanity, it's a very hostile environment.
Sure, we'll continue sending orbiters and landers and rovers. At some point, our bots may be intelligent enough to hand drilling and mining on their own. But you still have to answer the question what are they drilling and mining for and what benefit is there will will justify the money being spent.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 8:54 AM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
To be clear, this is totally beneficial. But there's not many concrete reasons that will get governments to pony up the billions of dollars to go beyond Earth orbit. There's just not much out there for humanity, it's a very hostile environment.
Sure, we'll continue sending orbiters and landers and rovers. At some point, our bots may be intelligent enough to hand drilling and mining on their own. But you still have to answer the question what are they drilling and mining for and what benefit is there will will justify the money being spent.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 8:54 AM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
Science.
Short term: science.
Medium term: industry. Move as much of the toxic industrial processes where it does not hurt the planet.
Long term: whole worlds. and more!
It's the bootstrap issue. Once there are resources at close reach it reduces the marginal cost of space travel. Put hundreds of smart people at a university in space and the value to everyone is beyond incredible.
posted by sammyo at 9:03 AM on February 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
Short term: science.
Medium term: industry. Move as much of the toxic industrial processes where it does not hurt the planet.
Long term: whole worlds. and more!
It's the bootstrap issue. Once there are resources at close reach it reduces the marginal cost of space travel. Put hundreds of smart people at a university in space and the value to everyone is beyond incredible.
posted by sammyo at 9:03 AM on February 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
the physical laws standing in the way of mining commodity minerals or metals in space and bringing then down to earth make this the equivalent of establishing title requirements for magic swords or dragon leasing regulations. the sort of thing you think of if you believe fantasy hard sci fi novels are real.
posted by ennui.bz at 9:14 AM on February 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by ennui.bz at 9:14 AM on February 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
An unalloyed good: while it isn't necessary for the enactment of a law like this for exploitation of outer space mineral resources to be viable, it IS entirely necessary, albeit not sufficient, for the exploitation of outer space mineral resources for a law like this to be enacted.
Gravity is the main obstacle to economic outer space activities, but it wouldn't surprise me for the next-most-important obstacle to be lobbying by owners of terrestrial industries and resources that would face ruinous competition.
posted by MattD at 9:17 AM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
Gravity is the main obstacle to economic outer space activities, but it wouldn't surprise me for the next-most-important obstacle to be lobbying by owners of terrestrial industries and resources that would face ruinous competition.
posted by MattD at 9:17 AM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
mining commodity minerals
Aren't they only commodity minerals because no one is paying the cost of clean-up from the mining? My impression has been that mining would be exorbitantly cost-prohibitive if the mining companies had to foot the bill for environmental losses.
Not that I know how the costs of clean mining would compare to the cost of space mining.
posted by mittens at 9:21 AM on February 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
Aren't they only commodity minerals because no one is paying the cost of clean-up from the mining? My impression has been that mining would be exorbitantly cost-prohibitive if the mining companies had to foot the bill for environmental losses.
Not that I know how the costs of clean mining would compare to the cost of space mining.
posted by mittens at 9:21 AM on February 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
This summer! These rowdy, fun loving space miners were nearly done with a job when their asteroid got jacked. Now it's up to them to take back what was theirs and, by the way, save Earth. Armageddon 2: The Asteroid King
Or possibly Fast and Furious 17
posted by A dead Quaker at 9:26 AM on February 3, 2016
Or possibly Fast and Furious 17
posted by A dead Quaker at 9:26 AM on February 3, 2016
shoggoth isn't even the problem. cthulu wants to consume reality itself. He only lives in nightmares. And ignores gravity, to eat reality. That's the big problem.
posted by adept256 at 9:29 AM on February 3, 2016
posted by adept256 at 9:29 AM on February 3, 2016
Ok, how about a really crazy idea. Build a huge lake in the middle of the Sahara.
First assume we find an asteroid with billions of gallons of water or pull some from one of the Jupiter moons. How to get it there? Note that the meteor that blew out windows in Chelyabinsk was traveling 50,000 MPH and about the size of a big tugboat. The biggest problem with meteors is not the chunk of rock but the speed that they hit.
Minimum orbit is 17,000 MPH. Using air friction to slow a rocket for re-entry is the only practical way at the moment. But what if there were rocket engine to bring that speed to about 0 MPH outside the atmosphere? Take that billions of gallons of water asteroid, drop them into them middle of the Sahara at Terminal Velocity (122 MPH) and you'll get a big earthquake (maybe do smaller chunks) but not a giant explosion. And a fix for a currently mostly worthless ecosystem.
Crazy idea but violates no laws of science and we probably have most of the technology right now.
posted by sammyo at 9:35 AM on February 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
First assume we find an asteroid with billions of gallons of water or pull some from one of the Jupiter moons. How to get it there? Note that the meteor that blew out windows in Chelyabinsk was traveling 50,000 MPH and about the size of a big tugboat. The biggest problem with meteors is not the chunk of rock but the speed that they hit.
Minimum orbit is 17,000 MPH. Using air friction to slow a rocket for re-entry is the only practical way at the moment. But what if there were rocket engine to bring that speed to about 0 MPH outside the atmosphere? Take that billions of gallons of water asteroid, drop them into them middle of the Sahara at Terminal Velocity (122 MPH) and you'll get a big earthquake (maybe do smaller chunks) but not a giant explosion. And a fix for a currently mostly worthless ecosystem.
Crazy idea but violates no laws of science and we probably have most of the technology right now.
posted by sammyo at 9:35 AM on February 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
You still have a big rock hitting earth very fast. Which isn't very acceptable.
posted by adept256 at 9:44 AM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by adept256 at 9:44 AM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
Not rock. Not fast.
posted by sammyo at 9:54 AM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by sammyo at 9:54 AM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
Build a huge lake in the middle of the Sahara. Which one of the following countries that land in the Sahara would be ok with this, Algeria, Chad, Egypt, Libya, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Niger, Sudan, Tunisia?
The biggest problem with meteors is not the chunk of rock but the speed that they hit.
Pretty sure it's the size of the chunk of rock that's going pretty fast that's the problem.
Take that billions of gallons of water asteroid, drop them into them middle of the Sahara at Terminal Velocity (122 MPH) and you'll get a big earthquake (maybe do smaller chunks) but not a giant explosion.
Yes, let's create a 'big earthquake,' that's always a fine idea.
Finally, who's gonna pay for all this? And wouldn't it be cheaper to pump sea water, run it through filters and use that water to irrigate the desert, not to mention safer than dropping an asteroid on the planet?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 10:27 AM on February 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
The biggest problem with meteors is not the chunk of rock but the speed that they hit.
Pretty sure it's the size of the chunk of rock that's going pretty fast that's the problem.
Take that billions of gallons of water asteroid, drop them into them middle of the Sahara at Terminal Velocity (122 MPH) and you'll get a big earthquake (maybe do smaller chunks) but not a giant explosion.
Yes, let's create a 'big earthquake,' that's always a fine idea.
Finally, who's gonna pay for all this? And wouldn't it be cheaper to pump sea water, run it through filters and use that water to irrigate the desert, not to mention safer than dropping an asteroid on the planet?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 10:27 AM on February 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
Could mine an asteroid to create an orbiting solar power plant to collect and beam down energy for desalination plants.
posted by ZeusHumms at 10:34 AM on February 3, 2016
posted by ZeusHumms at 10:34 AM on February 3, 2016
It's not just Platinum-it is all the heavier elements (Gold, Uranium, iridium, etc) that are much, much easier to access from asteroids than here on earth (most of the earth's share of these moved to the mantle/core during formation due to differential settlement). All of them have real industrial uses that are not utilized much (if at all) due to the cost/limited access. So who knows what the market value of platinum (or any other rare but useful element with unique properties) really is until we have enough to fully explore its uses (the history of aluminum is a good example here). Until aluminum got cheap (enough), only the barest idea of its true potential was understood.
A HUGE benefit to a developing space infrastructure will be really, really abundant clean energy from two sources-solar power satellites and cheap nuclear fuels (the nuclear fuels thing may or may not pan out-but solar farms in orbit WILL). In geosynchronous orbit there is only a few hours of 'night' a year, not 50% of the time like land based, solar collectors are far, far more effecient in orbit, and the power can be transmitted safely using microwaves to a large (a few acres) antenna that is sufficiently low impact that you can use the ground under it for crops (livestock grazing would even be possible). If that is too high impact for you, high power lasers could be used for transmission (however this is much more dangerous). With this technology though you get a space propulsion system that does not require fuel. So many of the worlds problems with wealth inequality and poverty can be boiled down to cheap energy. If you have enough of it just about any industrial process can be made clean (and those that can't can be moved off world), there is no need for such things as deforestation, desertification and so on.
As for Moon regolith toxicity, most of it is likely fixable with sufficient water-which certain asteroids have HUGE reserves of and the occasional comet coming by even more. Readily available water resources will cure a LOT of problems in space. Radiation shielding, growing food, atmospheric needs, and so on.
Every change in the human condition is beset and ridiculed by the naysayers who decry the cost, the expense the waste of it all on foolishness and impossible dreams. However what actually solves the various ills of mankind is those brave, foolhardy and intrepid individuals and societies who take the chance and strike out in some novel, new way.
posted by bartonlong at 10:35 AM on February 3, 2016 [5 favorites]
A HUGE benefit to a developing space infrastructure will be really, really abundant clean energy from two sources-solar power satellites and cheap nuclear fuels (the nuclear fuels thing may or may not pan out-but solar farms in orbit WILL). In geosynchronous orbit there is only a few hours of 'night' a year, not 50% of the time like land based, solar collectors are far, far more effecient in orbit, and the power can be transmitted safely using microwaves to a large (a few acres) antenna that is sufficiently low impact that you can use the ground under it for crops (livestock grazing would even be possible). If that is too high impact for you, high power lasers could be used for transmission (however this is much more dangerous). With this technology though you get a space propulsion system that does not require fuel. So many of the worlds problems with wealth inequality and poverty can be boiled down to cheap energy. If you have enough of it just about any industrial process can be made clean (and those that can't can be moved off world), there is no need for such things as deforestation, desertification and so on.
As for Moon regolith toxicity, most of it is likely fixable with sufficient water-which certain asteroids have HUGE reserves of and the occasional comet coming by even more. Readily available water resources will cure a LOT of problems in space. Radiation shielding, growing food, atmospheric needs, and so on.
Every change in the human condition is beset and ridiculed by the naysayers who decry the cost, the expense the waste of it all on foolishness and impossible dreams. However what actually solves the various ills of mankind is those brave, foolhardy and intrepid individuals and societies who take the chance and strike out in some novel, new way.
posted by bartonlong at 10:35 AM on February 3, 2016 [5 favorites]
However what actually solves the various ills of mankind is those brave, foolhardy and intrepid individuals and societies who take the chance and strike out in some novel, new way.
Yeah, the existing track record for those people so far is the destruction of the only viable biosphere we know of, with a heaping helping of genocide to go along with it. Pardon me if I'm a little less than thrilled at the prospect of giving them more worlds to ruin.
posted by tobascodagama at 10:38 AM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yeah, the existing track record for those people so far is the destruction of the only viable biosphere we know of, with a heaping helping of genocide to go along with it. Pardon me if I'm a little less than thrilled at the prospect of giving them more worlds to ruin.
posted by tobascodagama at 10:38 AM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
Every change in the human condition is beset and ridiculed by the naysayers who decry the cost, the expense the waste of it all on foolishness and impossible dreams. However what actually solves the various ills of mankind is those brave, foolhardy and intrepid individuals and societies who take the chance and strike out in some novel, new way.
It's a black and white issue. There are plenty of crazy ideas that were indeed crazy. Bringing up issues with an idea isn't bad at all, it's necessary to work out the kinks, so that implementation doesn't go to badly. Especially if the idea involves landing an asteroid on the only home we have.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 10:44 AM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
It's a black and white issue. There are plenty of crazy ideas that were indeed crazy. Bringing up issues with an idea isn't bad at all, it's necessary to work out the kinks, so that implementation doesn't go to badly. Especially if the idea involves landing an asteroid on the only home we have.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 10:44 AM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
Pretty sure it's the size of the chunk of rock that's going pretty fast that's the problem.
Nope. Kinetic energy = mass * velocity squared. Speed is by far the more important term if you want to know how big the boom is going to be. Large asteroids moving at tens of thousands of kilometers per second are packing nuclear weapon scale energy and behave accordingly. An object starting from a dead stop at 100km in the air would hit the ground at speeds on the order of a skydiver who didn't open her parachute. You wouldn't want it to land on your house, but there would be no explosion. Better yet, under those conditions a small rock won't burn up in the atmosphere. Dropping lots of 10T rocks over a wide area repeatedly over a long period of time wouldn't pose an earthquake hazard.
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 10:59 AM on February 3, 2016
Nope. Kinetic energy = mass * velocity squared. Speed is by far the more important term if you want to know how big the boom is going to be. Large asteroids moving at tens of thousands of kilometers per second are packing nuclear weapon scale energy and behave accordingly. An object starting from a dead stop at 100km in the air would hit the ground at speeds on the order of a skydiver who didn't open her parachute. You wouldn't want it to land on your house, but there would be no explosion. Better yet, under those conditions a small rock won't burn up in the atmosphere. Dropping lots of 10T rocks over a wide area repeatedly over a long period of time wouldn't pose an earthquake hazard.
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 10:59 AM on February 3, 2016
It's not just Platinum-it is all the heavier elements (Gold, Uranium, iridium, etc) that are much, much easier to access from asteroids than here on earth...
FWIW Uranium is not particularly scarce on earth, it's about as common as lead - navigating the geostrategic/political minefield of getting it enriched is the tricky part.
posted by Dr Dracator at 11:22 AM on February 3, 2016
FWIW Uranium is not particularly scarce on earth, it's about as common as lead - navigating the geostrategic/political minefield of getting it enriched is the tricky part.
posted by Dr Dracator at 11:22 AM on February 3, 2016
Dropping lots of 10T rocks over a wide area repeatedly over a long period of time wouldn't pose an earthquake hazard
Ok, but what happens to the rocks and fuel after the rock safely lands at 0mph?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 11:40 AM on February 3, 2016
Ok, but what happens to the rocks and fuel after the rock safely lands at 0mph?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 11:40 AM on February 3, 2016
solar collectors are far, far more efficient in orbit
Eh, they're not that much more efficient end-to-end, especially when you consider that the collecting infrastructure on the ground could just as well be ordinary solar panels instead. In approximate EROEI terms, space-based solar is somewhere between half and twice as good as ground-based solar. Even at the optimistic end, positing a 100x improvement in the power:weight ratio for space-based solar panels (which you can interpret as a dramatic reduction in launch costs, if you like), it hardly seems worth the trouble. Far simpler to just build more ground-based solar and wind.
posted by jedicus at 11:44 AM on February 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
Eh, they're not that much more efficient end-to-end, especially when you consider that the collecting infrastructure on the ground could just as well be ordinary solar panels instead. In approximate EROEI terms, space-based solar is somewhere between half and twice as good as ground-based solar. Even at the optimistic end, positing a 100x improvement in the power:weight ratio for space-based solar panels (which you can interpret as a dramatic reduction in launch costs, if you like), it hardly seems worth the trouble. Far simpler to just build more ground-based solar and wind.
posted by jedicus at 11:44 AM on February 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
Ok, but what happens to the rocks and fuel after the rock safely lands at 0mph?
Well it was my crazy example idea. NOT rocks. Rain, frozen water. A big lake full worth of space water. H2O.
In the Middle of the biggest desert in the world. Not on a city. Hundreds of miles from any town. Ask any of the surrounding countries if they would like enough water to grow their own food? Go water skiing? Have drinking water close by?
Is it practical? No idea. Violates no physics or engineering principal, is it cheap? In planetary dollars, free (assuming growth of a space based economy that prints it's own space-dollars, builds the engines in orbit, mines the fuel in orbit). At some point past the chicken-egg problem space will be free for earth people, they will pay you good wages to come out and work, the dollars come back to fund earth projects.
posted by sammyo at 11:58 AM on February 3, 2016
Well it was my crazy example idea. NOT rocks. Rain, frozen water. A big lake full worth of space water. H2O.
In the Middle of the biggest desert in the world. Not on a city. Hundreds of miles from any town. Ask any of the surrounding countries if they would like enough water to grow their own food? Go water skiing? Have drinking water close by?
Is it practical? No idea. Violates no physics or engineering principal, is it cheap? In planetary dollars, free (assuming growth of a space based economy that prints it's own space-dollars, builds the engines in orbit, mines the fuel in orbit). At some point past the chicken-egg problem space will be free for earth people, they will pay you good wages to come out and work, the dollars come back to fund earth projects.
posted by sammyo at 11:58 AM on February 3, 2016
Ask any of the surrounding countries if they would like enough water to grow their own food? Go water skiing? Have drinking water close by?
I dunno, is water that's from ice that's been slumming it in space for a several million years really drinkable? Honestly don't know and betting it probably is after some basic filtering. But you drink first, ok?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 12:05 PM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
I dunno, is water that's from ice that's been slumming it in space for a several million years really drinkable? Honestly don't know and betting it probably is after some basic filtering. But you drink first, ok?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 12:05 PM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
gimli: "I believe NASA took a pass on it"
NASA's page for the Asteroid Redirect Mission is still up.
posted by Hairy Lobster at 12:17 PM on February 3, 2016
NASA's page for the Asteroid Redirect Mission is still up.
posted by Hairy Lobster at 12:17 PM on February 3, 2016
More importantly: Even if it's suitable for agriculture or drinking while it's in space, will it still be after mixing with a few acres of desert sand?
Even more importantly than that: Not very many people live in the Sahara to begin with, so you still have the problem of transporting the water from this Space Rock Lake to the people who actually need it, which is mostly the same problem we already have.
posted by tobascodagama at 12:19 PM on February 3, 2016
Even more importantly than that: Not very many people live in the Sahara to begin with, so you still have the problem of transporting the water from this Space Rock Lake to the people who actually need it, which is mostly the same problem we already have.
posted by tobascodagama at 12:19 PM on February 3, 2016
> Is water that's from ice that's been slumming it in space for a several million years really drinkable?
Well, a large chunk of the Earth's current water supply did come from comets and asteroids, but I would also be happy for someone else to drink first. Rosetta, for example, seems to suggest that the deuterium to hydrogen ratio of ice on Comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko is somewhat different from what we have on Earth.
But yeah, in the outer solar system, there's a lot of water, even if it is mixed in with methane and ammonia and a sprinkling of fairy dust.
posted by RedOrGreen at 12:20 PM on February 3, 2016
Well, a large chunk of the Earth's current water supply did come from comets and asteroids, but I would also be happy for someone else to drink first. Rosetta, for example, seems to suggest that the deuterium to hydrogen ratio of ice on Comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko is somewhat different from what we have on Earth.
But yeah, in the outer solar system, there's a lot of water, even if it is mixed in with methane and ammonia and a sprinkling of fairy dust.
posted by RedOrGreen at 12:20 PM on February 3, 2016
Is it practical? No idea. Violates no physics or engineering principal...
the amount of kinetic energy your average comet/asteroid has relative to the earth is uh... astronomical. so, the amount of energy required to being that kinetic energy down to zero is... uh... totally beyond the realm of the possible. we can't even really change the path, say, of an asteroid on a collision course with the earth, much less land one in the Sahara.
but the biggest problem with capitalism in space is "negative externalities." in an environment where even dumping your space toilet is going to be fatal to someone on the wrong orbital path, all activity has to be exquisitely coordinated and managed. you can't have routine human activity in space without some form of full communism...
posted by ennui.bz at 12:26 PM on February 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
the amount of kinetic energy your average comet/asteroid has relative to the earth is uh... astronomical. so, the amount of energy required to being that kinetic energy down to zero is... uh... totally beyond the realm of the possible. we can't even really change the path, say, of an asteroid on a collision course with the earth, much less land one in the Sahara.
but the biggest problem with capitalism in space is "negative externalities." in an environment where even dumping your space toilet is going to be fatal to someone on the wrong orbital path, all activity has to be exquisitely coordinated and managed. you can't have routine human activity in space without some form of full communism...
posted by ennui.bz at 12:26 PM on February 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
In the Middle of the biggest desert in the world. Not on a city.
Yeah, but will this enormous icecube survive the climate dynamics that turned Sahara into a desert in the first place? My vague understanding is that deserts are dry because the weather/geology doesn't let water stay there, not because they didn't have any water to begin with.
If you want to get rid of the desert, Shai-hulud is the answer - not asteroids.
posted by Dr Dracator at 12:38 PM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yeah, but will this enormous icecube survive the climate dynamics that turned Sahara into a desert in the first place? My vague understanding is that deserts are dry because the weather/geology doesn't let water stay there, not because they didn't have any water to begin with.
If you want to get rid of the desert, Shai-hulud is the answer - not asteroids.
posted by Dr Dracator at 12:38 PM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
Or we might decide that mining where there's a biosphere is too destructive.
*snort*
In the Middle of the biggest desert in the world. Not on a city. Hundreds of miles from any town. Ask any of the surrounding countries if they would like enough water to grow their own food? Go water skiing? Have drinking water close by?
A desert is an ecosystem, too. Monkeying with ecosystems on a massive scale to improve things for humans above all else has been done. Ask the Chinook salmon and delta smelt how that's working out.
posted by entropicamericana at 12:41 PM on February 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
*snort*
In the Middle of the biggest desert in the world. Not on a city. Hundreds of miles from any town. Ask any of the surrounding countries if they would like enough water to grow their own food? Go water skiing? Have drinking water close by?
A desert is an ecosystem, too. Monkeying with ecosystems on a massive scale to improve things for humans above all else has been done. Ask the Chinook salmon and delta smelt how that's working out.
posted by entropicamericana at 12:41 PM on February 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
Maybe we could land them on the moon, and process there?
Then your ingots are sitting at the bottom of a gravity well and you're going to to have to work to get them out again.
I was going to handwave about shaping stuff into foamed-metal maplekey or glider shapes but I don't know how much that slows stuff down.
posted by sebastienbailard at 1:13 PM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
Then your ingots are sitting at the bottom of a gravity well and you're going to to have to work to get them out again.
I was going to handwave about shaping stuff into foamed-metal maplekey or glider shapes but I don't know how much that slows stuff down.
posted by sebastienbailard at 1:13 PM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
Minimum orbit is 17,000 MPH. Using air friction to slow a rocket for re-entry is the only practical way at the moment. But what if there were rocket engine to bring that speed to about 0 MPH outside the atmosphere? Take that billions of gallons of water asteroid, drop them into them middle of the Sahara at Terminal Velocity (122 MPH) and you'll get a big earthquake (maybe do smaller chunks) but not a giant explosion. And a fix for a currently mostly worthless ecosystem.
Terminal velocity for a 1 km ice sphere is 15625.95 km/hr. (Which is probably faster than it'd be from a standing start in low earth orbit.)
Drag goes as the area of an object, so larger objects of the same density fall faster than smaller objects.
You can observe this by taping skydivers together into a bigger and bigger ball.
posted by sebastienbailard at 1:24 PM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
Terminal velocity for a 1 km ice sphere is 15625.95 km/hr. (Which is probably faster than it'd be from a standing start in low earth orbit.)
Drag goes as the area of an object, so larger objects of the same density fall faster than smaller objects.
You can observe this by taping skydivers together into a bigger and bigger ball.
posted by sebastienbailard at 1:24 PM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
Mostly worthless by what standards?
posted by tobascodagama at 1:48 PM on February 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by tobascodagama at 1:48 PM on February 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
Terminal velocity for a 1 km ice sphere is 15625.95 km/hr
Ok my bad arithmetic. So if we can process the water, perhaps to extract deuterium, then make ice cubes/hail of a safer more practical size so that when it hits the new lake it has the minimum impact.
Clearly it's not a practical project at the moment but as a though experiment to answer the "what is space good for". Every raw material we need down here is abundant out there. But except for this kind of replenishment idea don't ship raw materials, do the industrial product processing where toxic waste and problem thermal do not affect this ecosystem.
Bootstrap.
When we don't have to ship all the raw materials up sending workers will be practical.
posted by sammyo at 2:27 PM on February 3, 2016
Ok my bad arithmetic. So if we can process the water, perhaps to extract deuterium, then make ice cubes/hail of a safer more practical size so that when it hits the new lake it has the minimum impact.
Clearly it's not a practical project at the moment but as a though experiment to answer the "what is space good for". Every raw material we need down here is abundant out there. But except for this kind of replenishment idea don't ship raw materials, do the industrial product processing where toxic waste and problem thermal do not affect this ecosystem.
Bootstrap.
When we don't have to ship all the raw materials up sending workers will be practical.
posted by sammyo at 2:27 PM on February 3, 2016
You're all so damn negative! Didn't any of you read TFA? Luxembourg is on this!
posted by From Bklyn at 2:28 PM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by From Bklyn at 2:28 PM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
I was surprised that Luxembourg was already a player in the space industry but it kinda makes sense, small country with extra capital; where to invest? Can't really grow borders these days, subbasements a bad idea, build up, very very far up!
posted by sammyo at 2:56 PM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by sammyo at 2:56 PM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
Are you there asteroid? It's me, Luxembourg.
posted by fairmettle at 3:34 PM on February 3, 2016
posted by fairmettle at 3:34 PM on February 3, 2016
Deep Space Industries (DSI), a Californian asteroid mining firm, says the industry is already attracting $2 billion a year in private investment. The company launched a subsidiary last year in Luxembourg and praised its government for embracing the future. (From TFA)The cynic in me suggests that this could explain some of Luxembourg's enthusiasm.
That said, so, dropping a water asteroid in the Sahara.
[T]here are over 332,519,000 cubic miles of water on the planet.Just what we need. More water. Remember: once that water is dropped, it is here for good. But also, there's no guarantee that it will stay where you drop it. In fact, the case study formerly known as the Aral Sea tells us that it won't stay there. So either you contract to keep dropping ice asteroids into the new Sahara Sea to maintain it, or else you undertake some serious planetary re-engineering to replace the one-off ice drop with an ecologicically sustainable re-supply, or else you accept that sooner or later - and in decades, not centuries, either way - the Sahara will revert to desert.
Then there's the question of how you arrange to completely kill the net motion of an ice asteroid 100 miles above the Sahara (or rather, where the Sahara will be when the water lands). Billions of gallons of water is a lot of mass, and you are talking about bringing it to a dead stop in a gravity field that 100 miles above Earth is still only a small fraction less than the 1G we walk around in. That takes a lot of energy. If you have a drive that can produce a sustained 1G thrust under millions of tons of load, you have more interesting uses for it than dropping billions of gallons of water into a gravity well that is already well supplied with water. Such as exploring and colonising nearby stars, such as moving asteroids into orbit around the Earth where they can form the nucleus of the coming space based civilisation, such as terraforming Venus, Mars and the Moon by adjusting their rotation (Venus) and water supply (Mars) and providing and maintaining atmosphere and water (Moon).
Then there's the question of all the loose shit that clings to the surface of asteroids. You're going to put the brakes on fast enough to make the eyes of the aliens hidden inside the asteroid bug out. Assuming the asteroid holds together, a lot of boulders and other shrapnel is going to keep right on going. Some will hit atmosphere and burn up, others will fly off somewhere. Some will go into orbit, to come back round and blast you from behind 90 minutes later, Gravity style.
Perhaps instead you're going to stop it by some fancy slingshot ballistics, using less powerful drives to accelerate shepherding masses in such a way as to kill the motion of the asteroid dead in space 100 miles up. Better hope nobody drops a decimal point in their calculations.
Beaming energy from space. Great idea! Just what the world needs - more heat.
Screwing the world by dropping giant floating foamy metal asteroids. If you're sending enough to make a difference, you're importing heat again.
Don't get me wrong. As a child, I dreamed of spending my 42nd birthday on the Moon - in 2000. I want us to go into space. I believe with all my heart that we need to move a viable fraction of our species into space if we are going to survive. But let's not trash the launch pad in the process.
posted by Autumn Leaf at 6:12 PM on February 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
Having been on a number of major mining sites in the last few years and having logged an obscene number of hours in Kerbal Space Program, what strikes me the most about calls to mine space is that the current industrial mining processes/methods/designs are almost inseparably tied to using gravity as a major tool. From demolition to reclaiming to screening to haulage to grading to the rest, gravity-based methods are key, and I'd love to see how they're planning on getting around that. I'm sure there are some good ideas -- but I also think that a lot of this is underpants gnome logic.
posted by barnacles at 6:58 PM on February 3, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by barnacles at 6:58 PM on February 3, 2016 [5 favorites]
What is actually being proposed is capsule reentry or inflatable decelerators but what's more interesting (and closer to what we're talking about here) is the dropping of foam metal balls unencapsulated right into a desert.
You get 100 Kg of a platinum group metal and form it into a foam metal ball of about 2 metres in diameter with a density of around 12kg / m^3.
This has a terminal velocity below 60 mph.
Here's someone enthusiastic talking about it. (That someone being Peter Diamandis from Planetary Resources)
(I've linked to the point on foam metal re-entry, but the rest of it is an interesting watch)
Also, the economics issue about how it's pointless to bring back platinum because you'll flood the market. That's a good thing in the long run, for humanity, because you can start asking questions about what you could do with these ridiculously rare metals that we aren't doing because they cost too much.
Most of the platinum we use goes into catalytic converters and other pollution mitigating solutions.
Another use is in Cisplatin, an anti-cancer drug. Making these things cheaper seems to be a great idea to me.
Are there other things we could do with platinum if it were cheaper?
And it's not just platinum; Annual production of Ruthenium is around 12 tonnes a year, but it's a fascinating material and it's scarcity makes researching stuff like high temperature superconductors an expensive proposition.
Platinum group scarcity is a real thing, so much so that people are looking into sourcing it from nuclear reactors, which is more or less alchemy!
Asteroid mining is ambitious, but it is absolutely worthwhile, and absolutely possible.
posted by Just this guy, y'know at 7:41 AM on February 4, 2016 [3 favorites]
You get 100 Kg of a platinum group metal and form it into a foam metal ball of about 2 metres in diameter with a density of around 12kg / m^3.
This has a terminal velocity below 60 mph.
Here's someone enthusiastic talking about it. (That someone being Peter Diamandis from Planetary Resources)
(I've linked to the point on foam metal re-entry, but the rest of it is an interesting watch)
Also, the economics issue about how it's pointless to bring back platinum because you'll flood the market. That's a good thing in the long run, for humanity, because you can start asking questions about what you could do with these ridiculously rare metals that we aren't doing because they cost too much.
Most of the platinum we use goes into catalytic converters and other pollution mitigating solutions.
Another use is in Cisplatin, an anti-cancer drug. Making these things cheaper seems to be a great idea to me.
Are there other things we could do with platinum if it were cheaper?
And it's not just platinum; Annual production of Ruthenium is around 12 tonnes a year, but it's a fascinating material and it's scarcity makes researching stuff like high temperature superconductors an expensive proposition.
Platinum group scarcity is a real thing, so much so that people are looking into sourcing it from nuclear reactors, which is more or less alchemy!
Asteroid mining is ambitious, but it is absolutely worthwhile, and absolutely possible.
posted by Just this guy, y'know at 7:41 AM on February 4, 2016 [3 favorites]
Why not just skip the middle-man and go straight to replicators? Just as easy and possible.
posted by entropicamericana at 7:45 AM on February 4, 2016
posted by entropicamericana at 7:45 AM on February 4, 2016
Also, the economics issue about how it's pointless to bring back platinum because you'll flood the market. That's a good thing in the long run, for humanity, because you can start asking questions about what you could do with these ridiculously rare metals that we aren't doing because they cost too much.
I don't think anyone is arguing that the platinum market collapsing would be a bad thing in itself. Just that the risk of causing a collapse in the platinum market insures that there's no financial incentive for any corporation to retrieve platinum from asteroids.
posted by tobascodagama at 7:48 AM on February 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
I don't think anyone is arguing that the platinum market collapsing would be a bad thing in itself. Just that the risk of causing a collapse in the platinum market insures that there's no financial incentive for any corporation to retrieve platinum from asteroids.
posted by tobascodagama at 7:48 AM on February 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
IIRC platinum is useful for stuff other than just being expensive.
posted by Artw at 8:15 AM on February 4, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Artw at 8:15 AM on February 4, 2016 [2 favorites]
Upbeat piece from David Brinkley here: 2015 Was the Best Year Ever in Space
posted by Artw at 8:16 AM on February 4, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Artw at 8:16 AM on February 4, 2016 [2 favorites]
Probably due to cosmic radiation from the asteroids.
posted by mittens at 8:56 AM on February 4, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by mittens at 8:56 AM on February 4, 2016 [2 favorites]
The apex of a technological civilization is the construction of a Dyson Sphere. This will take a very, very long time, so we'd better get started now. Asteroid mining is the tiniest of baby steps in that direction.
posted by ambulocetus at 9:06 PM on February 4, 2016
posted by ambulocetus at 9:06 PM on February 4, 2016
« Older For the Care and Feeding of the People Who Feed Us | the neon gods they made Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
But first, you gotta spend billions to get your drilling rig there. So it might be a while.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 5:55 AM on February 3, 2016