Mostly I agree with Tom, also being an L5er. But not completely.
Reaching the asteroids may be easier, and it seems prefereable for permanent residence type operations (colonization); but for commercial relations with your biggest market, the astroids tend to be just a bit too far away. The time between interactions make it a bit cumbersome.
The moon is a real handy place to find MASS. Dirt. Minerals. Stuff. The asteroids are good too, better in some ways. But by the time we have ships that cut the travel time to the asteroids to reasonable spans, landing on the moon will be a cake walk.
To the asteroids, via the moon. (What would that be. Ad asteroid, per Selene?)
Polywell on the Moon?
As a former NSSer, Planetary Society-er, AIAAer and IEEEer, I think this is all moot until the NASA budget exceeds it FY2010 value of 0.52% of the US Federal budget,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Budge ... _1958-2009
by at least a factor of 2 and preferably by an order of magnitude.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Budge ... _1958-2009
by at least a factor of 2 and preferably by an order of magnitude.
Point taken. Until some capitalistic entity is willing to blaze a trail into space without some government holding the purse strings... It will probably happen in Asia first.KitemanSA wrote:Why would any company try to compete against the NASA-Industrial complex for low cost access to space? Why would the industries in said complex do anything to upset the tit they are suckling?
Terminate NASA and get on with the REAL colonization of space.
Those conspiracy theories about secret government space programs keeping the "public" space programs in the harbor are starting to look more and more believable.
I guess the first 10,000 ton lump of platinum to be recovered from the asteroid belt will be a convincing argument for the value of space!!DeltaV wrote:Point taken. Until some capitalistic entity is willing to blaze a trail into space without some government holding the purse strings... It will probably happen in Asia first.KitemanSA wrote:Why would any company try to compete against the NASA-Industrial complex for low cost access to space? Why would the industries in said complex do anything to upset the tit they are suckling?
Terminate NASA and get on with the REAL colonization of space.
Those conspiracy theories about secret government space programs keeping the "public" space programs in the harbor are starting to look more and more believable.
10,000 tons of platinum? What would that do to the price of platinum?
I wrote a story called "The Delicate Crunch of Marshmallows" some years back, in which I supposed we were out in the asteroid belt. My premise was that platinum and gold were not sufficiently valuable to spur the development, and I needed something more. At that time I was thinking scandium and rare earths might do it, if we had developed a technology requiring them in large amounts and Earth was not going to meet the demand.
When a friend of mine and I first came up with that, we were eyeing scandium, which had just spiked in value to an enormous level. I proposed that maybe scandium and the rare earths would turn out to be a key component of high temperature superconductors, which in turn would be the key to prosperity. My friend said this was nuts because rare earths tend to make ceramics, not conductors.
This was about 2 years before it was discovered that they were, in fact, the key to high temperature superconductors, and scandium is an ingredient in among the best of them.
Maybe this will eventually create a convergence. We'll build fusion-powered ships to exploit the asteroid belt for materials to build fusion reactors.
I wrote a story called "The Delicate Crunch of Marshmallows" some years back, in which I supposed we were out in the asteroid belt. My premise was that platinum and gold were not sufficiently valuable to spur the development, and I needed something more. At that time I was thinking scandium and rare earths might do it, if we had developed a technology requiring them in large amounts and Earth was not going to meet the demand.
When a friend of mine and I first came up with that, we were eyeing scandium, which had just spiked in value to an enormous level. I proposed that maybe scandium and the rare earths would turn out to be a key component of high temperature superconductors, which in turn would be the key to prosperity. My friend said this was nuts because rare earths tend to make ceramics, not conductors.
This was about 2 years before it was discovered that they were, in fact, the key to high temperature superconductors, and scandium is an ingredient in among the best of them.
Maybe this will eventually create a convergence. We'll build fusion-powered ships to exploit the asteroid belt for materials to build fusion reactors.
Ok, so I'm one of the first miners out in the asteroid belt looking for unobtainium which is very high in value and very rare. But I keep finding gold, platinum, rubidium and other such metals by the buckets full. It would take to much time away from my mission so it wouldn't pay to take my ship back to Earth with this cargo. How do I get buckets of these relatively valuable metals back to Earth? See, a bucket of gold wouldn't make much difference in overall profitability, but it would go a long way toward paying the wages of the ground crew.
Do I load it up in my trusty rail gun and fire it off to Earth? Do I shoot the moon or parachute it to Earth or aim for a holding orbit convenient to my return trip?
Do I load it up in my trusty rail gun and fire it off to Earth? Do I shoot the moon or parachute it to Earth or aim for a holding orbit convenient to my return trip?
Aero
Yes, you just attach some booster jets to it and punt it off slowly out of the asteroid belt orbit. You'd deal with the re-capture and trans-terrestrial injection closer to earth, or just store it in a lunar orbit until you want it, and/or until the commodity price is right. (It's mostly 'downhill' from there!)Aero wrote: Do I load it up in my trusty rail gun and fire it off to Earth? Do I shoot the moon or parachute it to Earth or aim for a holding orbit convenient to my return trip?
Thinking a moment longer on that, it is a bit bizarre, really. Are we really saying that we actually don't want platinum, but actually we only want what the earth has got and in limited supplies so as to hold the 'price' up!?!Tom Ligon wrote:10,000 tons of platinum? What would that do to the price of platinum?
As I suggested before, in the future they won't have 'money' as we know it today and such an idea that there actually may not be value in bringing scarce resources back to earth will be looked upon as completely bonkers.
This is the absolute, core problem with 'wealth' and 'money'. If the prime object is getting rich (which is the key purpose of being in business and/or getting 'shareholder value') then technology and resources are pointless. There were plenty of rich people 5,000 years ago. This cannot be an objective. The objective has to be to give everyone all that they can possibly want. But that'd mean the 'rich' people aren't 'rich' any more so they'll keep brainwashing you that this is a wrong conclusion.
I'm not saying we don't exploit whatever is valuable once we get there, I'm just saying we need something really valuable to motivate the effort in the first place.
The last I heard, US launch costs are around $15,000/lb to LEO. How valuable are perfect ball bearings and the special alloys they can make there? But once you do have an industrial presence in the belt, getting things back ought to be significantly cheaper. The trick is facing the initial expense of establishing that presence ... you need a powerful motivator.
In my opinion, given efficient transportation (which means nuclear or solar power sources), we can build an entire economy in the asteroid belt. The problem is similar to colonizing the New World: we have created great wealth here, but most of it remains here, and Spain did not get but a tiny fraction of it long-term. Spain was, however, interested in valuable trade goods and precious metals when they took the original risk. But I do appreciate the point about "getting rich". To me, creating wealth means working up a thriving economic system, and the ideal version of that benefits everyone. It is just going to be a really tough sell to say we should spend a vast amount now to create such a system "out there" if it does not create wealth back here as well, so you need something to convince people it is worth it.
I'm less sure Luna has the makings of a vital economy, but discovery of significant water there would help tilt things that way greatly. It could be utilized as part of an overall space economy.
I've very concerned that lunar gravity is insufficient for long-term human health. In the asteroid belt you make your own gravity, living in rotating habitats.
The last I heard, US launch costs are around $15,000/lb to LEO. How valuable are perfect ball bearings and the special alloys they can make there? But once you do have an industrial presence in the belt, getting things back ought to be significantly cheaper. The trick is facing the initial expense of establishing that presence ... you need a powerful motivator.
In my opinion, given efficient transportation (which means nuclear or solar power sources), we can build an entire economy in the asteroid belt. The problem is similar to colonizing the New World: we have created great wealth here, but most of it remains here, and Spain did not get but a tiny fraction of it long-term. Spain was, however, interested in valuable trade goods and precious metals when they took the original risk. But I do appreciate the point about "getting rich". To me, creating wealth means working up a thriving economic system, and the ideal version of that benefits everyone. It is just going to be a really tough sell to say we should spend a vast amount now to create such a system "out there" if it does not create wealth back here as well, so you need something to convince people it is worth it.
I'm less sure Luna has the makings of a vital economy, but discovery of significant water there would help tilt things that way greatly. It could be utilized as part of an overall space economy.
I've very concerned that lunar gravity is insufficient for long-term human health. In the asteroid belt you make your own gravity, living in rotating habitats.
Regarding this business about finding a reason to go out into space, for example the asteroids, I think it is important to send out a swarm of probes to see what is present in them. We've flown by a few, touched down on one, smashed one comet, etc. We should be prospecting.
We've barely scratched the surface of the Moon and Mars, and just gazed from above elsewhere.
We should adopt the Republican chant: "Drill, baby, drill!" Bore some holes and analyze some samples. There might be water IN the moon, for example.
The focus of this forum is a particular form of fusion power. If it works, it is a radical game-changer in the economics of space exploitation, and that was what got Dr. Bussard out of bed every morning. It might be pie in the sky at the moment, but if it does work that pie starts looking mighty tasty. I can almost smell it!
We've barely scratched the surface of the Moon and Mars, and just gazed from above elsewhere.
We should adopt the Republican chant: "Drill, baby, drill!" Bore some holes and analyze some samples. There might be water IN the moon, for example.
The focus of this forum is a particular form of fusion power. If it works, it is a radical game-changer in the economics of space exploitation, and that was what got Dr. Bussard out of bed every morning. It might be pie in the sky at the moment, but if it does work that pie starts looking mighty tasty. I can almost smell it!
I can't think of any simpler solution (in syntax) than to move the people there.Tom Ligon wrote: It is just going to be a really tough sell to say we should spend a vast amount now to create such a system "out there" if it does not create wealth back here as well, so you need something to convince people it is worth it.
I recall a SF short story from several decades ago. I don't recall the arthur or title, but the basic plot was of a prospecting spaceship drilling on an asteroid. Results were dissapointing, they were only finding worthless minerals like gold, platinum, etc. But suddenly they hit pay dirt-Tom Ligon wrote:10,000 tons of platinum? What would that do to the price of platinum?
I wrote a story called "The Delicate Crunch of Marshmallows" some years back, in which I supposed we were out in the asteroid belt. My premise was that platinum and gold were not sufficiently valuable to spur the development, and I needed something more. At that time I was thinking scandium and rare earths might do it, if we had developed a technology requiring them in large amounts and Earth was not going to meet the demand.
When a friend of mine and I first came up with that, we were eyeing scandium, which had just spiked in value to an enormous level. I proposed that maybe scandium and the rare earths would turn out to be a key component of high temperature superconductors, which in turn would be the key to prosperity. My friend said this was nuts because rare earths tend to make ceramics, not conductors.
This was about 2 years before it was discovered that they were, in fact, the key to high temperature superconductors, and scandium is an ingredient in among the best of them.
Maybe this will eventually create a convergence. We'll build fusion-powered ships to exploit the asteroid belt for materials to build fusion reactors.
Yueka!!! We've hit water!
Dan Tibbets
To error is human... and I'm very human.