The "Does This Exist?" Thread

[peter grimes]

Actually, there are a lot of resources at the bottom of the ocean. In Brazil we are calling it "Blue Amazon" now, and there are talks about exploring (besides oil and natural gas) gold, diamond, coal, potassium, copper, and whatever more they find down there. But I don't know how far we are to actually commercially mine all this. I think it is still in the a stage of exploration, improving technology and creating new laws.

I can't believe that diamonds and coal will ever be economically exploitable at depth. Diamond ds can already be produced artificially pretty cheaply, and coal is so ubiquitous it's the cheapest power source we have.

 

[Tecknojock]

Link? Sounds cool.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapo...cean-oil-success-brazil-goes-deep-sea-mining/

There you are.

 

[Cutlass]

Can we please have some concrete examples of really cool resources worth blasting off into space there and back for? Helium-3 scarcely qualifies until we figure out how to do fusion in the first place, which isn't even guaranteed ever to happen.

The point really is that those resources would be in space already. Since the biggest cost of space exploration and any future colonization is actually Earth to orbit, anything we can get from space is something that we don't lift too space. And that would make everything in space much more affordable.

 

[Monsterzuma]

So what you're saying is we'd still need any resources we can get from sources here on earth, including submerged ones.

 

[SouthernKing]

So what you're saying is we'd still need any resources we can get from sources here on earth, including submerged ones.

Except it's just easier to get them on land than having to go scavenging the ocean floor.
But once you get a small crew and some equipment over to whatever celestial body you want to utilize, it's much easier and cheaper to go there.
The ocean is completely unrelated.

 

[Cutlass]

So what you're saying is we'd still need any resources we can get from sources here on earth, including submerged ones.

Once you reach a certain point, it's not that hard to drop something from orbit compared to lifting it to it.

 

[Monsterzuma]

Except it's just easier to get them on land than having to go scavenging the ocean floor.

We're already drilling on the outer continental shelf. Give it a few decades and even the ocean floor will look attractive compared to whats left above ground.

But once you get a small crew and some equipment over to whatever celestial body you want to utilize, it's much easier and cheaper to go there.
The ocean is completely unrelated.

If its so much easier why haven't we gone to any of those celestial bodies yet, with the sole exception of the moon? Explorations of the deepest parts of earths oceans date back to 1960, a full decade before the first landing on the moon.

 

[History_Buff]

If its so much easier why haven't we gone to any of those celestial bodies yet, with the sole exception of the moon? Explorations of the deepest parts of earths oceans date back to 1960, a full decade before the first landing on the moon.

Lack of popular support and political will mostly.

If we decided we want to do it, we could have people walking on the surface of Mars 10 years from now, for about 10 Billion dollars, including a return ticket. Using technology that already exists. In the case of the rocket, it might be easier to just build more Saturn Vs. But you really don't need much in the way of lift capability.

There were discussions of doing this in the late 80s/early 90s, but then, for completely idiotic reasons, politicians decided they needed to build some monstrous "Battlestar" type ship to go, and that would have cost something in the realm of 100-200 billion dollars.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

If its so much easier why haven't we gone to any of those celestial bodies yet, with the sole exception of the moon? Explorations of the deepest parts of earths oceans date back to 1960, a full decade before the first landing on the moon.

We do give money to NASA to explore around in space on an extremely limited basis. However, no country has ever spent money to actually exploit outer space resources. And up until now, the capital investments to do so were so astronomical that only a government could do it. Lacking political will meant that it didn't happen.

As I stated before, major shifts in the aersopace industry and a new, business-oriented focus on space travel by Obama is changing this.

If we decided we want to do it, we could have people walking on the surface of Mars 10 years from now, for about 10 Billion dollars, including a return ticket. Using technology that already exists. In the case of the rocket, it might be easier to just build more Saturn Vs. But you really don't need much in the way of lift capability.

There were discussions of doing this in the late 80s/early 90s, but then, for completely idiotic reasons, politicians decided they needed to build some monstrous "Battlestar" type ship to go, and that would have cost something in the realm of 100-200 billion dollars.

Your first paragraph is absolutely true. I would also like to add that the battlestar concept cost all that money in 1990 dollars. It was outrageous and a great example of why we haven't done more in space.

The government sets a vaguely define goal that has no prospect for a return on investment then they give huge, cost-plus contracts to corporations to meet the goal. This encourages the corporations to overspend on everything they do. And after the goal has been met, no money has been made and nothing has been produced that didn't ultimately come from taxpayer money.

At least now Obama is investing in private corporations to allow them to overcome the massive capital requirements they need to build the hardware and methodology to go out and do things in space.

Edit: I must admit that there are plenty of space-based telecommunications and geolocation businesses out there. Those got their start through the government - but they aren't the same as going and mining an asteroid or setting up a colony.

 

[Integral]

You're looking for Nick Bostrom's writings. As well, the Long Now Foundation thinks along these lines.

You, sir, are a gentleman and a scholar.

Also I'm now half-convinced that I'm living in a simulation. Drat.

 

[Antilogic]

There are enough previous metals on a given asteroid to crash the market for them on earth if fully exploited. On phone now so linking is difficult. Google it or follow the link to the site of the planetary resources website I posted earlier. It is a company with the goal of mining asteroids.

The expense of transporting such a massive quantity of material is often overlooked. Even if the asteroid was chock full of rare earths and industrial catalysts, no economic method exists of transporting it to Earth.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

The expense of transporting such a massive quantity of material is often overlooked. Even if the asteroid was chock full of rare earths and industrial catalysts, no economic method exists of transporting it to Earth.

Actually getting it back to Earth is relatively easy and very economical. You crack the ice into hydrogen and oxygen to make rocket fuel, then use the asteroidal regolith to make a reentry heatshield. With additive manufacturing and ample raw inputs from the asteroid, you could also build pretty much whatever additional equipment you want on site.

Getting mining equipment out there in the first place is the hard part. But once there, you could concievable shift it from asteroid to asteroid almost without resupply. Of course, there is so much goodies to be had at one rock you probably wouldn't want or need to.

Edit: With additive manufacturing, you could actually send very little equipment to mine an asteroid. With good programming, you could even do it without people. Just send a robot, have it build more machines from asteroidal material, and then have all of those mine the asteroid and send back the goodies.

 

[El_Machinae]

You, sir, are a gentleman and a scholar.

Also I'm now half-convinced that I'm living in a simulation. Drat.

It's only reasonably likely that we are! We very well might not be.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

edit: I don't think there was a quote accompanying the post when I responded to ^^. If there was, my mistake.

 

[Integral]

It's only reasonably likely that we are! We very well might not be.

My prior's now about 0.30. Sound about right?

 

[Antilogic]

Actually getting it back to Earth is relatively easy and very economical. You crack the ice into hydrogen and oxygen to make rocket fuel, then use the asteroidal regolith to make a reentry heatshield. With additive manufacturing and ample raw inputs from the asteroid, you could also build pretty much whatever additional equipment you want on site.

Getting mining equipment out there in the first place is the hard part. But once there, you could concievable shift it from asteroid to asteroid almost without resupply. Of course, there is so much goodies to be had at one rock you probably wouldn't want or need to.

Edit: With additive manufacturing, you could actually send very little equipment to mine an asteroid. With good programming, you could even do it without people. Just send a robot, have it build more machines from asteroidal material, and then have all of those mine the asteroid and send back the goodies.

It's not nearly as easy as you make it out to be, given most of that technology doesn't exist yet. Also, Earth's gravity well--average costs for getting something to GTO is at minimum $5,000/lb if not significantly greater, and you still have to get it over to the asteroid belt. And all this fancy manufacturing equipment that only exists on paper isn't necessarily cheap nor mass-less.

 

[Synobun]

It's not nearly as easy as you make it out to be, given most of that technology doesn't exist yet. Also, Earth's gravity well--average costs for getting something to GTO is at minimum $5,000/lb if not significantly greater, and you still have to get it over to the asteroid belt. And all this fancy manufacturing equipment that only exists on paper isn't necessarily cheap nor mass-less.

Which is why we must first invest in getting a foot in space before trying to jump straight to exploitation.

Trawlers to clear our orbit of debris, moon factory, constant link up, etc. Building things for space will become significantly easier if there's less chance of things screwing up and a place for things to be built in a space vacuum environment.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

It's not nearly as easy as you make it out to be, given most of that technology doesn't exist yet.

Well there are these key technologies:
Rockets http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket
3D Printers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3D_Printers
Radios http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radios http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Space_Network
Mining Equipment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mining_equipment#Machinery
AI http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_intelligence
A place to live in while out there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhab

Pretty far-fetched stuff, I know.

Also, Earth's gravity well--average costs for getting something to GTO is at minimum $5,000/lb if not significantly greater, and you still have to get it over to the asteroid belt.

NASA actually paid about $10,000/lb for the space shuttle. You could pay less if you go with a Russian booster and you have very good connections. $5k/lb is what the Russians pay for their own stuff to get up there. Also keep in mind everything I said about cost-plus contracts and the like. $10k/lb is a highly and artificially inflated number. It will come down dramatically as the free market begins to intrude on a previously state-run operation.

Companies like these will/are play[ing] a big part in that:
Planetary Resource is going to mine asteroids: http://www.planetaryresources.com/
SpaceX will get you to outer space: http://www.spacex.com/
So will Blue Origin: http://www.blueorigin.com/
Bigelow Aerospace has two space hotel mock ups on orbit (right now) and has contracts with SpaceX and Boeing to service their soon-to-be-built on-orbit manufacturies and space hotels: http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/

Also, cost to asteroid belt << cost to LEO, especially if not sending humans. So much so that the additional cost to get to the asteroid belt from LEO (if sending robots) is a non-issue.

And all this fancy manufacturing equipment that only exists on paper isn't necessarily cheap nor mass-less.

Here's a very simple article on how one would go about mining an asteroid. I promise you it's nothing too far-fetched.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid_mining

One other important technology I forgot to mention that is crutial but doesn't exist:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telescope The telescope

I promise you as someone who has spent my life studying this stuff and who has the goal of one day retiring on Mars, mining asteroids is not an insurmountable problem. The reason why is hasn't been done yet has much more to do with politics and high start up capital costs than technology or fundamental economics.

I could quote more sources and books but I hope you will take me on my word and based on what I've already sourced.

 

[History_Buff]

...moon factory,...

Why do people keep thinking Moon colonies are anything we should make? I mean, it's cool and all, but the Moon is an incredibly hostile environment. Mars is a vacation resort by comparison, and not much harder to get to.

constant link up, etc. Building things for space will become significantly easier if there's less chance of things screwing up and a place for things to be built in a space vacuum environment.

Space assembly will probably be required in the far future, but it's not exactly a Good Idea unless you've got people up there to do astute quality control. Unless you're trying to build something really, really big, it would be much easier to assemble and test it on Earth, then lift it to space.

I can't really think of any space assembly effort we've ever done that was more complicated than sticking pre-fabbed parts together.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Why do people keep thinking Moon colonies are anything we should make? I mean, it's cool and all, but the Moon is an incredibly hostile environment. Mars is a vacation resort by comparison, and not much harder to get to.

I tend to agree with this with the exceptions that it would make an excellent research and telescopic-viewing outpost. Also if fusion ever happens, there's helium 3.

Space assembly will probably be required in the far future, but it's not exactly a Good Idea unless you've got people up there to do astute quality control. Unless you're trying to build something really, really big, it would be much easier to assemble and test it on Earth, then lift it to space.

I can't really think of any space assembly effort we've ever done that was more complicated than sticking pre-fabbed parts together.

The repair of the hubble telescope and the assembly of the Mir and ISS come to mind immediately. You can say it's sticking together pre-fabbed parts but that applies to everything done on an assembly line as well. It also reflects poorly on a lot of very educated grease monkeys astronauts who put them together and all of the engineers who designed and built the things.

Space assembly (I assume you also take that to mean fabrication as well with the part about building something really really) is an excellent idea because if you can fabricate it in space, you have avoided the $10k/lb lifting expense we have been discussing. Launch cost will come down drastically in the long run but until they do, it's best to build things in space with materials from space wherever possible.

Edit: Construction in vacuum in zero g has major, major advantages over what we do on Earth. I could go on and on about the purity of materials refined in a vacuum/zero g, vapor deposition techniques that only work in such environments, how astronauts can move multi-ton pieces of equipment by hand....