Project to mine asteroids for water (and precious metals) has begun.

[OnlyTellsTruths]

Originally Posted by Andrew Wiggin

We've been through two cycles of this, and more if you count OnlyTellsTruths doing the same thing.

I don't think that is fair. I asked you to fill in details that your claim was missing and you did. It was impossible as it originally read, but then you clarified it.

I even said before you filled in the details that you were probably close to having the best (read: cheapest) idea for getting that payload to earth.

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by Andrew Wiggin

What part of "I've got no interest in playing tutor to people who act like things outside of their experience are impossible."

It isn't outside my experience. I spent 12 years working for Foster Yeoman, a British quarrying company. I know from experience what it takes to reduce even relatively soft limestone to coarse aggregate, let alone to dust. I've seen at first hand the astonishing toll that igneous rocks (such as the granite that F.Y. quarry in Scotland) takes on the plant.

Now, how do you propose to reduce a 20kt asteroid to a processable state, robotically, at zero-g? And that's just for starters.

[Roboramma]

Originally Posted by OnlyTellsTruths

I don't think that is fair. I asked you to fill in details that your claim was missing and you did. It was impossible as it originally read, but then you clarified it.

I think you go too far when you say "it was impossible as it originally read". Rather, it wasn't a complete plan. He says "Drop them from orbit into a pit". That's not impossible, but it's lacking in the details of how to get it done. Of course, at this point it's still lacking in further details (which Glenn B seems to be pointing out).

But given that this whole thread is about speculation I don't think it's reasonable to expect that level of detail (though it's certainly appreciated, as it adds a great deal to the topic).

Can it be done, and done profitably? I suspect it can, though I don't know exactly how (and admit I may be wrong). Anyway, I'm glad that someone seems to be willing to try: their is no gain without risk.

Finally, "I don't see how it can be done" is very different from "it's impossible", which seems to be Glenn B's position. Andrew is under no obligation to prove that Glenn B's ignorance of a solution is not evidence of no solution.

[Andrew Wiggin]

Originally Posted by GlennB

It isn't outside my experience. I spent 12 years working for Foster Yeoman, a British quarrying company. I know from experience what it takes to reduce even relatively soft limestone to coarse aggregate, let alone to dust. I've seen at first hand the astonishing toll that igneous rocks (such as the granite that F.Y. quarry in Scotland) takes on the plant.

Now, how do you propose to reduce a 20kt asteroid to a processable state, robotically, at zero-g? And that's just for starters.

Why don't you start by researching how the asteroids they're looking at differ from soft limestone. Then research what happens to such asteroids when they're heated. Then look at methods of heating things. You're still trying to apply one set of solutions to a problem they're not applicable to.

(here's a hint to start you out. 'Dirty Snowball')

[Andrew Wiggin]

One good overview of possible space based industry is http://www.permanent.com/. I don't consider this particularly scholarly, as it's just a summary of lots of various work, without a lot of attribution. It's still a good place to start. It's got some good stuff about how asteroids might be mined.

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by Roboramma

Finally, "I don't see how it can be done" is very different from "it's impossible", which seems to be Glenn B's position. Andrew is under no obligation to prove that Glenn B's ignorance of a solution is not evidence of no solution.

This is true in a theoretical sense. But when the objections are of a practical nature ("how will you process rock in zero-g?", for example) and the proponents of the scheme offer nothing in response except "you don't know it's impossible" then it becomes hard to distinguish them from the 9/11 CTists who say "You don't know what nano-thermite is capable of", or SF dreamers who say "You don't know that faster-than-light-travel is impossible".

Well, it's true I don't, in both cases. But if a commercial scheme requires a faster-than-light drive then I'm fully entitled to say "Show me your faster-than-light drive, or your plans to make one, then we'll talk".

So let's have positive proposals (from Andrew or anybody else) on how to mine, move, sort and refine minerals in zero-g. Robotically. With no chance of maintenance, at those distances. At mind-bending levels of expenditure (the relatively cheap part, mentioned by PR, is the identification and surveying of candidate asteroids. The cost of extraction they don't seem to mention, preferring graphics of cavernous James Bond-esque space vessels about to swallow an asteroid, and the like).

[Andrew Wiggin]

Originally Posted by GlennB

This is true in a theoretical sense. But when the objections are of a practical nature ("how will you process rock in zero-g?", for example) and the proponents of the scheme offer nothing in response except "you don't know it's impossible" then it becomes hard to distinguish them from the 9/11 CTists who say "You don't know what nano-thermite is capable of", or SF dreamers who say "You don't know that faster-than-light-travel is impossible".

Well, it's true I don't, in both cases. But if a commercial scheme requires a faster-than-light drive then I'm fully entitled to say "Show me your faster-than-light drive, or your plans to make one, then we'll talk".

So let's have positive proposals (from Andrew or anybody else) on how to mine, move, sort and refine minerals in zero-g. Robotically. With no chance of maintenance, at those distances. At mind-bending levels of expenditure (the relatively cheap part, mentioned by PR, is the identification and surveying of candidate asteroids. The cost of extraction they don't seem to mention, preferring graphics of cavernous James Bond-esque space vessels about to swallow an asteroid, and the like).

What's happening here is that since the days of the apollo missions, there's been a growing body of work on how to handle material in reduced and microgravity. It's just that your experience in quarrying limestone isn't applicable to this in any fashion. You're obviously online, or were since my last post. Did you do any research? Do you know the various families of asteroids, and which ones if any resemble limestone? Did you look up carbonyl chemistry and think about how that could apply to refining metals in zero gravity? Are you interested in this topic in any way other than as a naysayer?

[Andrew Wiggin]

Originally Posted by OnlyTellsTruths

I don't think that is fair. I asked you to fill in details that your claim was missing and you did. It was impossible as it originally read, but then you clarified it. I even said before you filled in the details that you were probably close to having the best (read: cheapest) idea for getting that payload to earth.

You're right. That wasn't fair. I apologize. I should not have referenced you in my discussion with Glenn, and I do see the distinction between your approach and his.

[Roboramma]

Originally Posted by GlennB

This is true in a theoretical sense. But when the objections are of a practical nature ("how will you process rock in zero-g?", for example) and the proponents of the scheme offer nothing in response except "you don't know it's impossible" then it becomes hard to distinguish them from the 9/11 CTists who say "You don't know what nano-thermite is capable of", or SF dreamers who say "You don't know that faster-than-light-travel is impossible".

Except we do know that faster than light travel is impossible.

If, like with faster than light travel, you can offer theoretical reasons to believe that this proposal is impossible, I'll listen. Does it violate conservation of energy? I certainly don't see it.

Quote:

Well, it's true I don't, in both cases. But if a commercial scheme requires a faster-than-light drive then I'm fully entitled to say "Show me your faster-than-light drive, or your plans to make one, then we'll talk".

No one is suggesting doing something that's known to be impossible according to the currently understood laws of physics.

Moreover, Andrew is not the company making this proposal. He is simply suggesting that there are ways that this proposal could be carried out. You say that those are unlikely to work. So far that's about the extent of the discussion.

The problem is if you were critiquing an actual plan to mine asteroids, I'd find your criticism apt. If you have plan you have to figure out the details. But the above company doesn't even have such a plan yet: they have simply proposed that this could become one thing that they become involved in.

Their actual plan seems to be to mine the asteroids for water. That's a very different thing. And so far all I can see is that they've suggested it's possible and that the first step is to find a viable target. I can't see anything wrong with that.

As for the images in their press releases and on websites, I suggest that's got very little to do with their actual plans.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by GlennB

This is true in a theoretical sense. But when the objections are of a practical nature ("how will you process rock in zero-g?", for example) and the proponents of the scheme offer nothing in response except "you don't know it's impossible" then it becomes hard to distinguish them from the 9/11 CTists who say "You don't know what nano-thermite is capable of", or SF dreamers who say "You don't know that faster-than-light-travel is impossible".

I think what has everyone excited about this is the fact that this venture has legitimate backers. There is more than one billionaire who thinks this is a worthwhile place to dump some money and to be associated with publicly. That doesn't mean it will work, and presumably they know that, but it does mean that it isn't some cockamamie faster than light travel scheme. If it were a ridiculous, outlandish, insane proposition, their highly paid advisors would be saying, "Excuse me Mr. Cameron, but you might want to give this a bit more thought."

Meanwhile, what a lot of people are missing is that the sheer quantity of rare materials that could be made available will open up a lot of possibilities that we can't even speculate about. Platinum group metals have very interesting chemical properties, but they are so expensive that researchers just can't spend the time figuring out what to use them for. If the world supply were to increase several-fold, somebody would find some really important use for them.

Presumably, these billionaires are looking at this as a high risk investment that might never yield a dime in profit, but if it does, it will have a huge payoff, and that payoff will probably not just be in dollars, but in changes in the way we live. The fact that they are willing to lend their names plus a few million dollars of pocket change to the venture suggests that there is at least a potential payoff, even if we, and they, don't know the details.

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by Andrew Wiggin

You're obviously online, or were since my last post. Did you do any research? Do you know the various families of asteroids, and which ones if any resemble limestone?

This is borderline creepy. Let me shock you by stating that I'll dispose of my time as I see fit.

Meanwhile I haven't suggested any asteroid material resembles limestone, simply that limestone is actually quite an easy mineral to process. But every single step in that process depends on gravity. You do realise that these robotic mining schemes will need to process hundreds, if not thousands, of tons of material with nil chance of maintenance, don't you?

Originally Posted by Andrew Wiggin

Did you look up carbonyl chemistry and think about how that could apply to refining metals in zero gravity?

I studied carbonyl chemistry during 'A-level' chemistry, 1968-69, thank you. A quick glance refeshed my memory somewhat. How does this relate to the refining of the Noble metals in space? Or is it just a catch-phrase you've read somewhere?

Originally Posted by Andrew Wiggin

Are you interested in this topic in any way other than as a naysayer?

Not yet.

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by Roboramma

As for the images in their press releases and on websites, I suggest that's got very little to do with their actual plans.

Quite possibly. But I hope their share issue prospectus is a lot more honest.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by GlennB

Meanwhile I haven't suggested any asteroid material resembles limestone, simply that limestone is actually quite an easy mineral to process. But every single step in that process depends on gravity.

The reason every step in the process depends on gravity is that you can't get away from gravity.

Every single step in the process of extracting metal from ore also depends on gravity, because gravity is always there and you can't get away from it and you have to design your process with gravity in mind. If somehow you could turn off gravity, you would do it differently.

[Mark6]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

The reason every step in the process depends on gravity is that you can't get away from gravity.

Every single step in the process of extracting metal from ore also depends on gravity, because gravity is always there and you can't get away from it and you have to design your process with gravity in mind. If somehow you could turn off gravity, you would do it differently.

True, but how is that a plus? It means every step of the process must be reinvented anew. None of terrestrial experience applies. Extracting useful material from asteroids will not be "mining in space" in the sense that extracting manganese from seabed is still "mining underwater". It will be an activity for which there isn't even a word yet.

(Yes, I am sure it will be called "mining", but that's like saying someone who throws a baited hook into stream and someone who scuba dives with a speargun are both "fishing")

[Andrew Wiggin]

Originally Posted by GlennB

This is borderline creepy. Let me shock you by stating that I'll dispose of my time as I see fit.

So, you don't actually intend to do any followup. Good to know. And you have very inclusive definitions of creepy which include someone noticing that you're posting replies almost immediately, and thus inferring that you're probably actively reading the thread. If I wanted to, I could have gone to your profile and seen exactly what you were reading at any particular instant.

Quote:

Meanwhile I haven't suggested any asteroid material resembles limestone, simply that limestone is actually quite an easy mineral to process. But every single step in that process depends on gravity. You do realise that these robotic mining schemes will need to process hundreds, if not thousands, of tons of material with nil chance of maintenance, don't you?

You don't seem to be making the leap here that if all the techniques you are familiar with require gravity, then any technique for asteroid mining is outside your experience with limestone quarrying, and thus your experience is irrelevant. You also haven't bothered to do any research on concentration of metals in asteroids versus earth rocks, so your estimate of 'hundreds, if not thousands of tons' is at best a guess, and in fact is completely unfounded. As was mentioned earlier, earth's crust has relatively low concentrations of metals, since they tended to migrate downwards. No such problem in space.

Quote:

I studied carbonyl chemistry during 'A-level' chemistry, 1968-69, thank you. A quick glance refeshed my memory somewhat. How does this relate to the refining of the Noble metals in space? Or is it just a catch-phrase you've read somewhere?

Alright, I'll spell it out for you. You keep up with the conception that refining metal in space is going to be exactly like doing it on earth, only harder. In fact it's easier. You use a mirror to concentrate sunlight on the asteroid, boiling off the water and carbon compounds. After you melt away the ice from the asteroid, you're left with a mix of rock and metal granules, with the metal granules being nickel iron with heavy cobalt and light precious metal impurities. You magnetically separate the metal from the rock, then put the metal granules in a tank along with some carbon. You electrolyze some of the ice, and pump a bit of oxygen into the tank, then heat the whole thing by focusing solar energy on it. The carbon burns with the oxygen to make carbon monoxide, which complexes with the iron, nickel, and cobalt to form their respective carbonyls. You condense these, then heat them to dissociate them into their respective metals, freeing up the carbon monoxide to be piped back into the tank. Once all the nickel, iron, and cobalt are out of the tank, you open it up and vacuum up the remaining metal dust, which is everything that was metal but too inert to form a carbonyl. That's the iridium, platinum, and other odds and ends. Use your solar mirror to melt them in vacuum, and they'll form nice spherical ingots to drop down to earth. I get it. Plenty of space scientists get it. I bet a good number of the other posters in the thread get it.

Quote:

Not yet.

If you aren't here from interest, then you're here to complain or to troll. Thanks for making that clear.

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

The reason every step in the process depends on gravity is that you can't get away from gravity.

Every single step in the process of extracting metal from ore also depends on gravity, because gravity is always there and you can't get away from it and you have to design your process with gravity in mind. If somehow you could turn off gravity, you would do it differently.

True, but only 'sort of'.

If you had to do it differently and could do it differently, you would. But those are rather demanding conditions, and ones that PR haven't begun to address.

For fun, here's a small technical scenario:

Your mining craft gets really close to the 20m x 20m asteroid that's loaded with 0.1% Iridium by weight. How will it secure itself? After all, you can't use any reactive process (such as hammering or drilling) when an escape velocity of 0.1cm/sec (yes, I made that figure up) will send your craft flying away from the target, and lesser velocities totally screw your operation anyway. You must be attached.

Do you fire explosive bolts that sink hooks into the surface? Maybe that could work, with sufficient redundancy built in to prevent utter mission failure at the first step.

Then you need to move your craft, as you've exhausted resources within the craft's local range (and never mind the process). How? Retract the hooks? How? Move the craft and fire more bolts?

This is a trivially obvious issue (among many others) and, yes, it's a "I don't see how" point. But it's one that needs answering before anyone dares spend many billions on such a stunningly speculative scheme.

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by Andrew Wiggin

Alright, I'll spell it out for you. You keep up with the conception that refining metal in space is going to be exactly like doing it on earth, only harder. In fact it's easier. You use a mirror to concentrate sunlight on the asteroid, boiling off the water and carbon compounds. After you melt away the ice from the asteroid, you're left with a mix of rock and metal granules, with the metal granules being nickel iron with heavy cobalt and light precious metal impurities. You magnetically separate the metal from the rock, then put the metal granules in a tank along with some carbon. You electrolyze some of the ice, and pump a bit of oxygen into the tank, then heat the whole thing by focusing solar energy on it. The carbon burns with the oxygen to make carbon monoxide, which complexes with the iron, nickel, and cobalt to form their respective carbonyls. You condense these, then heat them to dissociate them into their respective metals, freeing up the carbon monoxide to be piped back into the tank. Once all the nickel, iron, and cobalt are out of the tank, you open it up and vacuum up the remaining metal dust, which is everything that was metal but too inert to form a carbonyl. That's the iridium, platinum, and other odds and ends. Use your solar mirror to melt them in vacuum, and they'll form nice spherical ingots to drop down to earth. I get it. Plenty of space scientists get it. I bet a good number of the other posters in the thread get it.

Piece of cake, then?

Possibly the funniest piece of pseudo-science I'm ever likely to hear.

[Andrew Wiggin]

Expanding on my previous post a bit, there are some other really nice reasons to use carbonyl metallurgy in space. If you fill a balloon with a metal carbonyl, then heat the surface of the balloon, then metal precipitates out. If you choose the reaction conditions right, then the metal precipitates as a homogenous, structural layer. This is a great way to make tanks, to make habitat shells, and to make large mirrors. It's a more effective use of mass to shoot mylar balloons in useful shapes out to the asteroid than it is to shoot big heavy metal items. You just need to bring your first solar mirror, a collection of balloons, and some plumbing.

[Andrew Wiggin]

Originally Posted by GlennB

Piece of cake, then?

Possibly the funniest piece of pseudo-science I'm ever likely to hear.

I guess that says everything that needs to be said about your contribution to the thread.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by Mark6

True, but how is that a plus? It means every step of the process must be reinvented anew. None of terrestrial experience applies. Extracting useful material from asteroids will not be "mining in space" in the sense that extracting manganese from seabed is still "mining underwater". It will be an activity for which there isn't even a word yet.

(Yes, I am sure it will be called "mining", but that's like saying someone who throws a baited hook into stream and someone who scuba dives with a speargun are both "fishing")

Certainly, the engineering challenges are immense, but so is the payoff. Asteroids have accessible platinum in concentrations 20 times as high as earth based ores, and the same asteroid that contains a lot of platinum will also contain a lot of several other rare metals. Will that be enough to make it cost effective? Certainly not today, but in the future?


Andrew described the science behind space based metal extraction and, while GlennB found it laughable, the science is good. There's a huge step between knowing the science and being able to execute, but that's why we have engineers.

If the folks at Planetary Resources were using tax dollars for this, I'd be asking a lot of questions, but since they are using their own, I'm pretty excited about the concept. Even if they don't make it work, it's exciting that anyone is willing to publicly commit to it as a concept, and actively work on making it a reality. Someday, someone will do it, even if this venture goes bust.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by GlennB

True, but only 'sort of'.

If you had to do it differently and could do it differently, you would. But those are rather demanding conditions, and ones that PR haven't begun to address.

For fun, here's a small technical scenario:

Your mining craft gets really close to the 20m x 20m asteroid that's loaded with 0.1% Iridium by weight. How will it secure itself? After all, you can't use any reactive process (such as hammering or drilling) when an escape velocity of 0.1cm/sec (yes, I made that figure up) will send your craft flying away from the target, and lesser velocities totally screw your operation anyway. You must be attached.

Do you fire explosive bolts that sink hooks into the surface? Maybe that could work, with sufficient redundancy built in to prevent utter mission failure at the first step.

Then you need to move your craft, as you've exhausted resources within the craft's local range (and never mind the process). How? Retract the hooks? How? Move the craft and fire more bolts?

This is a trivially obvious issue (among many others) and, yes, it's a "I don't see how" point. But it's one that needs answering before anyone dares spend many billions on such a stunningly speculative scheme.

That, and many others, need to be answered, but these are engineering challenges. There's no fundamental roadblock that prevents it from happening. It's exciting that some people are spending real money trying to take baby steps in that direction, though.

[quarky]

Its a bit disturbing to see how GlennB is getting vilified here.
The evidence for the practicality of this endeavor clearly lies with the other camp.

Mining asteroids is sexy stuff. However, its as yet, sci-fi.
Besides the monetary implications, one should wonder about the possible dangers of such bold plans. The political implications are another can of worms.

One must wonder how much precious metals are actually required, or how their abundance might improve things.
A rethink of the automobile, for instance, would be the equivalent of finding a big stash of rhodium and platinum.
Are we squandering our resources?

One thing I do like about our space ambitions is that the very notion of squandering will be in the forefront. Maybe that's what it will take to step up to the plate, so to speak, as per minding every watt and every gram.

I've got serious doubts that anyone alive today will see this come to fruition.
I've got other doubts that wonder about the good that will come from it.
We aren't sophisticated enough, in other obvious aspects of our evolution to handle such technology. It reminds me of the bomb. Once it was shown to be feasible, someone needed a good bombing. Germany crumbled before the U.S. needed to drop a big one, but Japan filled the bill nicely.

[oglommi]

This thread is ruined by the luddite trolling. Skepticism is good but this is just nay nagging.

[Checkmite]

I think Planetary Resources is a little busy exploring the feasibility of identifying target asteroids and intercepting them with small spacecraft to spend time and capital right now developing zero-G mineral extraction techniques they don't know if there's ever going to be an opportunity to use.

[CapelDodger]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

I think Planetary Resources is a little busy exploring the feasibility of identifying target asteroids and intercepting them with small spacecraft to spend time and capital right now developing zero-G mineral extraction techniques they don't know if there's ever going to be an opportunity to use.

"Exploring feasability" comes very cheap. Sci-Fi has always depended on that.

I'd be interested to know how much Planetary Resources is paying people for this bold exploration of feasability. More than most Sci-Fi authors earn in a year, I'll wager.

[Checkmite]

According to them, they're currently in the "constructing bread-box-sized LEO telescopes" phase of exploring feasibility. IIRC, their general plan is to first make sure their telescopes work in orbit, and then after a few years make a version of their telescope with propulsion that can be "flown around" (like, to an asteroid), and then a few years later a version with equipment that can remote sense an asteroid and send more than just visual data back to Earth.

That sounds like plenty of work before they have to worry about "mining machines".

[Meadmaker]

Certainly skepticism is called for. We have no idea whether they have done any worthwhile groundwork for exploring feasibility beyond "artists conception" drawings.

Maybe the whole asteroid mining thing is just a publicity stunt to hype a much less exciting set of sensors being flown for,....whatever it is that people fly telescopes for these days.

And for all we know, it might be an elaborate cover story. They say they're going to fly small telescopes into low Earth orbit, but is that what they are really doing? Someone mentioned seafloor manganese mining. Anyone else remember the "Glomar Explorer"? It was a ship built specifically for the purpose of ocean floor mining of manganese. At least, that's what I saw in the '70s on National Geographic, or something similar. It was actually built to retrieve a sunken Russian submarine. Asteroid mining would be a great cover story to cover the existence of some next generation spy sensors.

But, regardless, I'm still enthused about it. Even if it's all pie in the sky, the fact is that it's close enough to being real that someone either believes it's real, or believes that other people will believe it. Even if it's a pipe dream, it still makes commercial exploitation of space a little bit closer than it was last week.

[Andrew Wiggin]

Originally Posted by quarky

Its a bit disturbing to see how GlennB is getting vilified here.

I'm not vilifying GlennB. He's doing that to himself by asking for facts, then pretending they aren't factual. The bit I posted above about carbonyl chemistry and its application to metal refining is actually current (as of probably twenty or thirty years ago) state of the art. If you have a coin, regardless of the country you call home, that has nickel content, that nickel was refined by distillation as its carbonyl. If you eat an iron fortified breakfast cereal, the iron granules in it were refined as iron pentacarbonyl. This is mature technology, as anyone with greater than a passing interest (or apparently fifty year old a-levels)in it would know. Gerard O'Neil was working on ways to do this sort of thing back in the seventies, and at that point all we lacked was motivation. Asteroid mining could have started in the seventies, and be an ongoing thing that people look at and say 'Of course we do that. It's obvious'. Instead it gets brought up and the luddites and naysayers come out of the woodwork to ridicule. The science and the physics say it works. The rest is a matter of sociology.

[NewtonTrino]

I would ignore Glenn, he's the buggy whip maker in this story.

We get it, space mining is a hard technical problem. Nobody is claiming they have it solved they are simply investing in solving it in the long term. The potential payoff is immense. In fact it's so immense that every man, woman and child should be praying to whatever they consider holy that this is going to work. Otherwise we are all screwed in the long term.

Of course most people have a hard time thinking 10 years ahead let alone 100 or 1000.

[JDC]

Stephen Baxter has written about this.

Has anyone read his non-ish fiction Deep Future? Ch.19 is "Sky Diamonds" and concerns mining asteroids.

Also his Manifold Time is a great story and revolves around asteroid mining and intelligent squid miners!

Cheers,
Jeff

[Andrew Wiggin]

Originally Posted by NewtonTrino

In fact it's so immense that every man, woman and child should be praying to whatever they consider holy that this is going to work. Otherwise we are all screwed in the long term.

Of course most people have a hard time thinking 10 years ahead let alone 100 or 1000.

Luckily there ARE people who think more than ten years ahead. I've been waiting for this through so many presidencies, so many failed opportunities, ever since I first encountered the work of Gerard O'Niell. It's about time this got off the ground, after more than thirty years of research on one hand and politics and naysaying on the other. If I had billions I'd be putting them behind this too. I think I'll pray to Gerard. Maybe Dyson too. I've given up on the raygun gothic future, with the flying cars, jetpacks, and glass spire cities, but I hope I live to see asteroid mining and orbital habitats.

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by NewtonTrino

The potential payoff is immense. In fact it's so immense that every man, woman and child should be praying to whatever they consider holy that this is going to work. Otherwise we are all screwed in the long term.

What, specifically, is it out there that might save us from this undefined doom?

[NewtonTrino]

Originally Posted by GlennB

What, specifically, is it out there that might save us from this undefined doom?

Energy and material resources that are vast compared to what we have here.

My vision is that heavy industry, polluting industry and anything else that creates environment damage should be moved off of earth long term.

Massive arrays of solar power satellites built out of mass that is from space supplying us energy.

Mining of the asteroid belt for precious materials that are hard to come by on earth.

My long term vision for earth is more of a garden and less as an industrial waste dump.

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by NewtonTrino

Massive arrays of solar power satellites built out of mass that is from space supplying us energy.

But ..... the output of these satellites will need to be collected on Earth anyway, so why not just collect the sunlight on Earth in the first place and save on the cost of building, launching and maintaining orbital solar power devices? The Earth is totally heaving with blisteringly sunny places. More to the point, the available area for collecting even atmospherically-attenuated sunlight will always outweigh satellite collection area by several orders of magnitude.

And collecting and processing the 'mass' from space to build these satellites would be hugely more expensive , in money and energy, than constructing the equivalent gear from materials found on the ground. It's mostly everday metals, plastics and various other common stuff after all.

What is the saving in the scheme you propose?

[NewtonTrino]

Originally Posted by GlennB

But ..... the output of these satellites will need to be collected on Earth anyway, so why not just collect the sunlight on Earth in the first place and save on the cost of building, launching and maintaining orbital solar power devices? The Earth is totally heaving with blisteringly sunny places. More to the point, the available area for collecting even atmospherically-attenuated sunlight will always outweigh satellite collection area by several orders of magnitude.

Now you are just making stuff up. What is the total mass of near earth asteroids? If they were all turned into solar reflectors what is the total energy we could re-direct? What I'm suggesting is that we build these from space based resources in space and then beam down the power.

Anyway, apparently I'm not the only person who thinks this is a good idea since there are ongoing projects now.

Quote:

And collecting and processing the 'mass' from space to build these satellites would be hugely more expensive , in money and energy, than constructing the equivalent gear from materials found on the ground. It's mostly everday metals, plastics and various other common stuff after all.

What is the saving in the scheme you propose?

It's not savings, it's called healing the earth and getting the polluting industries off of it.

Anyway have fun making bunny whips. Please let the adults who have some vision talk amongst themselves. You are the equivalent of the person who thought the telephone wouldn't work. Now I can make a video call to the other side of the planet.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by GlennB

What, specifically, is it out there that might save us from this undefined doom?

In the long run, nothing. The 2nd law of thermodynamics says there is some sort of time limit.

However, we can forestall our species' ultimate demise. Sooner or later Earth will be uninhabitable, but if, at that time, we have learned to live in space, we can stretch it longer. Then, if we can manage interstellar travel, a lot longer than that, then....sooner or later the jig is up.

However, for the next few thousand, or maybe hundreds of millions of years, Earth will remain suitable. What's in it for us in the next 50 years?

The answer is those heavy metals. They are incredibly rare on Earth. They are much more common on asteroids. There's a limited supply on Earth. There is a more or less unlimited supply from asteroids.

And why does it matter? Chemistry. Platinum does stuff. You can use it in fuel cells, catalytic converters, and a whole bunch of applications that are too expensive for people to try out today. I don't know what you could do with a few tons of ruthenium, but I'll bet there are things you can do with it that you can't do without it.

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by NewtonTrino

What is the total mass of near earth asteroids? If they were all turned into solar reflectors what is the total energy we could re-direct? What I'm suggesting is that we build these from space based resources in space and then beam down the power.

Damn little, because you wouldn't be able to use them.

They'd need to be in geostatonary orbit in order to focus on a terrestrial collector, and there's already competition for slots up there. There just isn't the room. Even then they have a limited life owing to the need to make regular positional adjustments. More to the point, if your reflector is pointed at some terrestrial collecting station, then for how much of every day will it also be suitably aligned with the sun to do any useful focussed reflecting? If you aim to constantly adjust its attitude for 12 hrs a day then you're burning fuel and also, much of the time, getting a smeared out-of-focus beam. Building a terrestrial solar power station, however, allows you to follow the sun for increased efficiency if you wish, or you can take a cruder approach and just have a damn lot of collectors. And any movement can itself be solar powered. Any satellite manoeuvering has to be fuel-powered.

Or is your plan just to haphazardly increase the sunlight hitting the Earth? I hope not.

You haven't thought this through, have you? Some of the points above are part of the reason why Andrew's scheme for extraction of metals from asteroids falls at the first hurdle, by the way.

[Andrew Wiggin]

Glenn, I think you've adequately established that you haven't kept your knowlege current with the state of the art. There are many ways now for space stations and satellites to do station-keeping besides rocketry. Oh, and I'm not going to list them just so you can disbelieve each one individually.

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

In the long run, nothing. The 2nd law of thermodynamics says there is some sort of time limit.

However, we can forestall our species' ultimate demise. Sooner or later Earth will be uninhabitable, but if, at that time, we have learned to live in space, we can stretch it longer. Then, if we can manage interstellar travel, a lot longer than that, then....sooner or later the jig is up.

The ultimate 'house move'. And there was me worried sick about the next ice-age, or that time when Africa bumps into Europe and The Med dries up

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

However, for the next few thousand, or maybe hundreds of millions of years, Earth will remain suitable. What's in it for us in the next 50 years?

The answer is those heavy metals. They are incredibly rare on Earth. They are much more common on asteroids. There's a limited supply on Earth. There is a more or less unlimited supply from asteroids.

And why does it matter? Chemistry. Platinum does stuff. You can use it in fuel cells, catalytic converters, and a whole bunch of applications that are too expensive for people to try out today. I don't know what you could do with a few tons of ruthenium, but I'll bet there are things you can do with it that you can't do without it.

I agree. But why Newton Trino suggests that our very survival depends on these elements escapes me, and he certainly hasn't explained.

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by NewtonTrino

Anyway, apparently I'm not the only person who thinks this is a good idea since there are ongoing projects now.

There are projects afoot to develop reflectors to beam focussed sunlight to Earth? That would make interesting reading. Do you have a link?