Antarctic resource extraction and colonization vs. Mars/moon/Titan/asteriods

Your argument is based in a partially wrong premise, which is that colonization of space is being proposed as a way to obtain resources for Earth. That is incorrect.

The main rationale for colonizing space is not economic, at least not in its entirety. The rationale is to establish and expand human presence *outside* the boundaries of Earth, to create independent branches of human civilization that would, should something terrible happen here on Earth, continue our species and our culture. Besides this, it is generally believed in the space community that colonizing space will stimulate growth of the kind of advancement we desire - in other words, money spent on colonizing space will mostly end up boosting innovation, which in turn will improve living standards of people on Earth.

Eventually, when our presence in space is solid enough, we might think about bringing some resources back to Earth to alleviate the environmental problems we have, but this isn't something that will become apparent soon enough to be counted on.

---

People who say "colonizing Antarctica/the sea-floor/the underground is easier and cheaper than colonizing space" are missing the point. Earth is limited. Space is unlimited. Once we learn how to live outside Earth, we have the whole Universe at our disposal, with its infinite opportunities. That's something that nothing here on Earth can give us.

And personally, I think it's not such an outrageous proposition to leave at least *one* continent here on Earth unspoiled by humans. Just one, is that so much to ask?

That's a valid point, but I don't think governments and people in general are thinking that far ahead. Lots of people seem to believe that infinite continuous growth with finite resources is possible without any consequence, I think space colonization if it happens will have to be driven by resource scarcity. It's hard to sell to the public "Hey lets set up a Mars outpost so over the course of 100 years we can establish human settlement in order to spread humanity as a fail-safe to a possible extinction event." Space programs are underfunded as it is.

Much easier to say "Asteroids have diamonds and gold! Infinite hydrocarbons on Titan! Lets mine that!"

As for Antarctica, meh no one lives there. It's like leaving a field fallow, kind of a waste might as well use it if we have to. We'll probaby start with Greenland, Canadian and Russian Arctic first though since those are melting. Greenland is chock full of all kinds of minerals including rare earth.
 
What potential is there for resource extraction on the Antarctic coastal areas and continental shelf? That's where we'd have to start. I think that offshore operations would run into many of the same problems with drifting sea ice that Shell had in the Arctic earlier this year. Perhaps there are areas of exposed land near the Antarctic coast that could contain resources? That is, of course, assuming we're willing to throw the Antarctic Treaty into the trash can, which seems very plausible given the behavior of humans around resources.

As for asteroid mining, I'd be very skeptical. It would be interesting to find out more about these cost-effective, self-replicating space factories though.
 
edit: X-posts, reply to Hobbsyoyo

Oil and possibly gas are surely the easiest to get out of the ground, since they require a relatively tight drill hole and don't require that much in terms of actual equipment going down. They are also high value per volume/mass.

With respect to infrastructure: You can just build an overground pipeline to send it to the coast and put it directly into boats there, no? This assumes you can find an oilfield relatively close to the coast.

About the number of people needed: Deepwater Horizon was manned by 126 people, I expect a similar amount could work for an Antarctic base. I suspect the scientific bases to have several dozens of people, so this is roughly the same order of magnitude.

About hostility: The climate in many of the place we're drilling now also sucks.

Honestly, I think if you had money to burn, hated the ecology and could convince the UN, you could set up an expedition to start drilling in Antarctica in 5 years, most of the tech is there. It wouldn't be economically feasible probably, but technically the problems are pretty controllable. Astroid mining is still a complete pipe dream.
 
As for asteroid mining, I'd be very skeptical. It would be interesting to find out more about these cost-effective, self-replicating space factories though.

In this thread I sketched out how you could do it. I've linked my posts that talk about it, the whole thread was really interesting as well.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=11709737&postcount=15
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=11714620&postcount=52
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=11715070&postcount=58
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=11715121&postcount=60
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=11717314&postcount=64
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=11812794&postcount=75
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=11814052&postcount=81

Oil and possibly gas are surely the easiest to get out of the ground, since they require a relatively tight drill hole and don't require that much in terms of actual equipment going down. They are also high value per volume/mass.
Very true.

With respect to infrastructure: You can just build an overground pipeline to send it to the coast and put it directly into boats there, no? This assumes you can find an oilfield relatively close to the coast.
You would have to put it on wheels to fight ice shelf drift and devise some way to lift it above the snow that will pile up on it. I guess that would do the trick.

About the number of people needed: Deepwater Horizon was manned by 126 people, I expect a similar amount could work for an Antarctic base. I suspect the scientific bases to have several dozens of people, so this is roughly the same order of magnitude.
Fair enough.

About hostility: The climate in many of the place we're drilling now also sucks.
I just think that massive UV exposure and constant subzero temperatures are a bit harder to deal with than typhoons and stuff. Particularly when you don't have teams of locals you can pay next to nothing to fix it and no (relatively) easy access to replacement parts.

Honestly, I think if you had money to burn, hated the ecology and could convince the UN, you could set up an expedition to start drilling in Antarctica in 5 years, most of the tech is there. It wouldn't be economically feasible probably, but technically the problems are pretty controllable. Astroid mining is still a complete pipe dream.

:lmao: Alright, you got me there.

Asteroid mining was a pipe dream, it's on the way toward becoming a reality though through the efforts of Planetary Resources and the general trends in the aerospace industry.
 
You would have to put it on wheels to fight ice shelf drift and devise some way to lift it above the snow that will pile up on it. I guess that would do the trick.
It doesn't actually snow that much on most of Antarctica, it's an ice desert. That's why it is at all possible to do astronomy there.

I just think that massive UV exposure
Ostensibly, these people would be wearing clothes when going outside. Besides, if you were planning to do this, you would hire a bunch of Chinese to do the actual work for you. Health and safety standards are optional :)

About the difficulty of bringing stuff to the South Pole. I have heard that Scott brought a pianola with him on his mission to the pole.
 
Ostensibly, these people would be wearing clothes when going outside.

Clothes? In Antarctica? Don't be absurd. Naturally they would go nude.

We'll probably perfect this stuff in Greenland and the Arctic before anything goes down in Antarctica. Or we'll all die before then. Either way.
 
It doesn't actually snow that much on most of Antarctica, it's an ice desert. That's why it is at all possible to do astronomy there.
But the snow drifts something fierce. McMurdo (?) is built on stilts that jack it up higher periodically because even though it doesn't snow, the snow drifts and naturally piles up against any obstruction. Many bases have been abandoned due to this (even other buildings at the McMurdo site) and even the one on stilts will eventually have to be abandoned.

Ostensibly, these people would be wearing clothes when going outside. Besides, if you were planning to do this, you would hire a bunch of Chinese to do the actual work for you. Health and safety standards are optional :)
I meant that the UV could cause problems for the electrical equipment, though on further thought this probably isn't a big deal. Certainly it's not as big a deal to the electronics as the temperature.

About the difficulty of bringing stuff to the South Pole. I have heard that Scott brought a pianola with him on his mission to the pole.
How many dogs did he have to feed to his dogs to pull that thing there?
 
I meant that the UV could cause problems for the electrical equipment, though on further thought this probably isn't a big deal. Certainly it's not as big a deal to the electronics as the temperature.
Complaining about harsh temperatures and radiation threatening my electronics is nice and all, if it wasn't for the fact that your alternative is putting them IN SPACE. Electronics dislike that even more.

Nice one about the stilts. Might depend where you are, McMurdo is right on the coast, I believe the inland is drier.

About the pianola: I once heard a documentary saying that none of the crew members knew how to operate the thing, which was a nice punchline, but google doesn't confirm this.
 
Complaining about harsh temperatures and radiation threatening my electronics is nice and all, if it wasn't for the fact that your alternative is putting them IN SPACE. Electronics dislike that even more.
Yes, but we have a lot of experience with that and it's a bit easier to keep the temp of a probe above it's minimum safe temp when you don't have an atmosphere whisking away heat and you have access to the sun which will instantly warm things in space.

Nice one about the stilts. Might depend where you are, McMurdo is right on the coast, I believe the inland is drier.
Sorry, I meant this base (Amundsen - Scott)
Spoiler :
800px-SouthPoleStationDestinationAlpha.jpg

(there are other bases on stilts too and they all look like futuristic space colonies)

I think you are going to have to consider snow drift and ice sheet drift issues pretty much anywhere you put a pipeline in Antartica. It's not as if the oil (if it is there, which we don't know) has conveniently lined up in favorable places for us. Those damn dinosaurs! Couldn't they all have the good sense to die in a convenient spot?

About the pianola: I once heard a documentary saying that none of the crew members knew how to operate the thing, which was a nice punchline, but google doesn't confirm this.

That's cool, but I really want to know how many sled dogs it cost to bring it there. :p
 
As for Antarctica, meh no one lives there.
The Adelie, King, and Emperor penguins live there. There are other birds and mammals that live there. And there is a spectacular ecosystem on the underside of the ice - an extremophile biologist's paradise!
 
That's a valid point, but I don't think governments and people in general are thinking that far ahead. Lots of people seem to believe that infinite continuous growth with finite resources is possible without any consequence,[

That indeed is a serious problem.

I think space colonization if it happens will have to be driven by resource scarcity. It's hard to sell to the public "Hey lets set up a Mars outpost so over the course of 100 years we can establish human settlement in order to spread humanity as a fail-safe to a possible extinction event." Space programs are underfunded as it is.

You don't sell it like that. You sell it in terms of achievement, prestige, scientific/technological benefits for people who pay for it, stuff like that.

Much easier to say "Asteroids have diamonds and gold! Infinite hydrocarbons on Titan! Lets mine that!"

Resource extraction in space for space is a viable proposition. E.g. if you have important, vital even, space infrastructure in the cis-lunar region and you need to keep it working, fuelled, and tended, mining the Moon or NEOs for resources which you need to do that becomes potentially very lucrative.

So yes, you can sell this space stuff based on purely economic rationale. You just can't do the same for mining metals or hydrocarbons for use on Earth. That will make very little economic sense for the foreseeable future, unless somebody invents anti-gravity and moving stuff in and out gravity wells becomes a child's play. Which is not going to happen, thanks to this evil thing called "physics".

As for Antarctica, meh no one lives there.

Nobody lives on mountain tops either, but I wouldn't exactly want to blow them up with nukes, pulverize the rock and then extract minerals from them. Antarctica should be left alone as a nature reserve.
 
The cost to put a kilo in orbit will start dropping precipitously as more for-profit launchers and companies open for business. The physics are also not a problem. If you look at it from a pure physics perspective, the amount of energy required to orbit isn't anything special. In fact, if you could deliver that amount of energy any way but through a rocket, you'd be paying a few dollars.

Unfortunately, rockets are the only way to do it, but their high price has as much to do with government manipulation/control of the market and lack of competition as it does with the inherent difficulty of building a rocket.

Lastly, the argument that start up costs are high and that it only makes sense to use space resources in space doesn't convince me. The price of opening a new mine on earth is high, or opening a new airport, or building a new airliner, or any other number of extremely expensive commercial operations that go ahead anyway. If there is a buck to be made someone will try it.
 
Unfortunately, rockets are the only way to do it, but their high price has as much to do with government manipulation/control of the market and lack of competition as it does with the inherent difficulty of building a rocket.

When did you turn Paulista?
 
In the US, this is true. We nearly killed off our launch capacity by forcing every satellite and payload to be launched on the shuttle, which couldn't be launched as often as NASA initially claimed. Then came Challenger and we had no launcher at all. When the shuttle came back, there were new payload restrictions so everyone switched to Ariane and other platforms.

The whole industry is practically founded on cost-plus contracts that dramatically inflate costs. Then there is the slate of tech-transfer laws that stifle business opertunities and regulations that are so byzantine and complex that it is hard to navigate and prohibits many activities for private companies without a NASA/USAAF contract.

We have not invested in this sector nearly enough and thrown up artificial barriers to entry that has further hurt this sector. So yeah, I have to side with Paul on this one and say: Free Market FTW
 
The cost to put a kilo in orbit will start dropping precipitously as more for-profit launchers and companies open for business. The physics are also not a problem.
That's questionable how much cheaper it can be without major technology breakthrough. The current technology based on chemical jet fuel has its limitations regardless of how efficiently it's going to be used from economical perspective. It's hardly possible to create profitable resource extraction from the Moon, for example, even if there will be discovered big supplies of platinum in the form of bars, packed in containers ready for transportation.

And free market regulation works well only if there is something to get profit from. Now, space is mostly a field of scientific research and some military reconnaissance, I don't see any way how resource mining there can be profitable at the current level of technology.
 
Cost plus dude. Rocket science isn't exactly new, we know how to do it quite well. However, when every contract to build a rocket includes cost-plus, the price gets artificially high. We have not allowed, for various reasons, very much competition in this market. So the prices are high.

The actual cost of a rocket isn't that big. But you have regulations to comply with, huge insurance costs, little competition and sweatheart cost-plus contracts that inflate that cost. It can and will come down, just look at the example SpaceX is already setting.

As for the economics of resource extraction, read some of those links from the other thread I posted. I *think* I covered that aspect in that thread as well as the 'how to do it' aspect.
 
The cost to put a kilo in orbit will start dropping precipitously as more for-profit launchers and companies open for business. The physics are also not a problem. If you look at it from a pure physics perspective, the amount of energy required to orbit isn't anything special. In fact, if you could deliver that amount of energy any way but through a rocket, you'd be paying a few dollars.

That is true, but it doesn't change the fact that nearly everything you can mine in space you can mine on Earth. Earth is made of the same stuff, and is much closer.

They only thing that could reverse this logic is if we set up really strict environmental standards for mining on Earth that would force companies to do the mining off-world. But then, this would hugely increase the prices of raw materials and unless you have an eco-friendly way of moving millions of tons of raw materials from space back to Earth, it's not much of an improvement over terrestrial mining.

Unfortunately, rockets are the only way to do it, but their high price has as much to do with government manipulation/control of the market and lack of competition as it does with the inherent difficulty of building a rocket.

Yup. Give me Skylon or give me quick and painless death, because I can't watch it any more.

Lastly, the argument that start up costs are high and that it only makes sense to use space resources in space doesn't convince me. The price of opening a new mine on earth is high, or opening a new airport, or building a new airliner, or any other number of extremely expensive commercial operations that go ahead anyway. If there is a buck to be made someone will try it.

I once played with an idea for a sci-fi story, which demonstrates the need for off-earth colonies:

sometime around now, we 'accidentally' create a "strangelet" particle in one of our particle accelerators. It sinks to the core of the Earth and starts converting its mass to some sort of quark-gluon plasma. The rate of this transformation is exponential, and scientists calculate it will take another 6-8 years for the effects to be felt, and another year from then for the surface to become uninhabitable, and then a few weeks for Earth to be totally consumed. There is no way to stop this.

It's kept secret, of course, but major governments launch frantic efforts to send at least a few thousand people to Mars to continue the human species and preserve at least something of the Terran genetic diversity. Of course there are disagreements over what the share of people from various nations should be among the colonists, so many pull our and go alone (China most prominently). Rich individuals who have learned about this plan to set up a private retreat on the Moon in the meantime.

As the doomsday approaches, governments can no longer keep the imminent destruction of Earth secret. The planet plunges into chaos as earthquakes and volcanic eruptions start making the planet uninhabitable. The last ships to leave Earth orbit can actually see the Earth surface burning with lava from supereruptions, and later they witness the final collapse which tears Earth apart to create an accretion disk of red-hot rocky debris. The Moon is actually hit by pieces of Earth thrown out during the implosion and the makeshift shelters there are damaged or destroyed (few eventually manage to evacuate to Mars and the Moon is abandoned).

400 years later, Mars is a terraformed, living planet whose inhabitants see Earth as something of a myth (in the same way we now think about ancient civilizations which no longer exist). One guy, who is a bit of a weirdo because he is obsessed with studying Earth history, geography, culture, ecology, basically all things Earth-related, by chance finds evidence that the "strangelet" accident was not an accident at all, but a deliberate sabotage by an alien entity. He and a few other people devise a way to use the frame-dragging effect around the collapsed remnant of Earth to send someone in a small capsule back into the past. Drama ensues when the government wants to stop them from carrying out their plan, but they eventually succeed. A closed time-like curve?

Bottom line - we need human presence beyond Earth ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom