3 ms·

The first time I was exposed to the concept of space-based industry was playing PC game Privateer as a kid. You land on these giant asteroids with attached mini

by abtinf 9y ago

The first time I was exposed to the concept of space-based industry was playing PC game Privateer as a kid. You land on these giant asteroids with attached mining bases... to transport ore to planets and refineries. It never made sense to me. Why setup all of this massive capital investment for mere ore? I think one of the very first space industries is going to be automated mining, refining, and production of nuclear fuel. Once freed from the widespread and totally irrational fear of nuclear technology here on Earth, the magnitude of advantage of nuclear power is stunning. Before the regulatory regime killed nuclear investment, it was well on its way to becoming cheaper than coal. Cheap, abundant energy solves virtually every human problem, whether on earth or in space. A stable supply of space based nuclear fuel will lead to exponential growth in space based activity and greatly simplify colonization of our solar system... and beyond.

jacobush 9y ago
Is there any uranium to be had in space?
- abtinf 9y ago
  I know very little about this. From what I've read, it is very unlikely that uranium ores will be found on asteroids, because concentrating uranium into economically mine-able quantities is believed to require long running thermal process in a planets core. That would mean looking for uranium on larger bodies, like the moon. https://www.space.com/6904-uranium-moon.html https://www.space.com/6904-uranium-moon.html
- twohlix_ 9y ago
  I'd wager that uranium (as with all the heavier elements) is spread throughout the solar system as it is forged and spread in stars going supernovae/hypernovae
- logfromblammo 9y ago
  Everything in the solar system is pretty much made out of the same stuff. There is uranium on Earth, the Moon, and Mars, so we can reasonably expect it to be present on other less massive objects in the solar system. But you also have to consider that materials stratify based on their density and chemical affinity. The Goldschmidt classification of an element defines sort of chemical cliques for the elements. Lithophile elements like to oxidize into minerals and float on top of any dense metal core. For instance, the dominant aluminum ore bauxite is frequently found close to the surface of the earth. To find those elements in space, you look for a rock-dominant (oxidized) asteroid. Siderophile elements like to form solid solutions with iron, and may not oxidize to lighter minerals readily. Elements like gold and platinum are considered rare on Earth not because the planet does not have a great quantity of them, but because the vast majority of that mass is way down in the iron core, where we cannot yet reach it. The mass near the surface is only there due to quirks of geology. To find those elements in space, you look for a metals-dominant asteroid. Chalcophile elements like sulfur, and on Earth their rarity (in terms of the amount we can dig up) is between lithophiles and siderophiles, because they tend to stratify above the iron-lovers and below the oxygen-lovers. The only elements that may be difficult to find would be those that form volatile molecules, because they typically get gradually blown away by solar wind, or stripped away all at once by a catastrophic cosmic event. Uranium and thorium are lithophile elements, so they shouldn't be too difficult to find on rocky, oxygen-heavy asteroids. Just look for low albedo and alpha particles from pitchblende. But beware that absent the ore-concentrating processes of large planets, you may have to process a lot of rock to get a usable quantity of fissile elements.
jasonwatkinspdx 9y ago
> Once freed from the widespread and totally irrational fear of nuclear technology here on Earth Look, I'm pro nuclear, but I"m also really tired of seeing this straw man. Responsible management of nuclear power requires institutions that can act responsibly to manage risk on time scales of the order of centuries. Recent history shows that many of our institutions fall short of what's really needed to do that. An event like Fukushima was a statistical certainty, and warnings prior to the event that warned of exactly what would happen were ignored. I don't think the answer to this is to turn our back on the potential of nuclear power. I do think we should be unflinchingly real about how hard and dangerous it is.
- abtinf 9y ago
  Dangerous compared to what? What is your standard of measure for danger? What are the alternatives to provide vital energy for human flourishing? What was the death toll from Fukushima? Zero. Everything at Fukushima went wrong, and yet only 8 out of 2400 workers were exposed to out-of-tolerate levels of radiation. None of the plant's neighbors got sick, and no discernible increase in the rate of cancer deaths is expected. Radiation is everywhere in the real world, it is a natural part of life, yet we treat it like any amount is a lethal danger, when in low doses it is not a meaningful threat. Fukushima was a non-event, and yet it caused a movement to shut down all nuclear power. Fear of nuclear is totally irrational. The more we embrace nuclear power, the greater its benefits to human well being. Nuclear is safer than every other form of large scale energy generation ever devised. The only concern with nuclear plants is a large release of radiation, which is unlikely due to the layers of shielding and containment. The scaremonger's goto example of chernobyl lacked such safety measures because the Soviets didn't care about human life. Also worth reading is The Health Hazards of NOT Going Nuclear: https://www.amazon.com/Health-Hazards-Not-Going-Nuclear/dp/0911762175 https://www.amazon.com/Health-Hazards-Not-Going-Nuclear/dp/0...
  - jasonwatkinspdx 9y ago
    I am very familiar with the details of Fukushima, the prevalence of natural radiation, and the health risks of alternatives. I again believe it is entirely dishonest to call fear of nuclear power irrational. Was it a mistake for Germany and Japan to shift generation away from nuclear? Yes IMO. But it's absurd to call an event that required mass evacuation harmless.
gwicks56 9y ago
I freaking LOVED that game. Serious time suck though.

by abtinf 9y ago

jacobush 9y ago

Is there any uranium to be had in space?

abtinf 9y ago
I know very little about this. From what I've read, it is very unlikely that uranium ores will be found on asteroids, because concentrating uranium into economically mine-able quantities is believed to require long running thermal process in a planets core. That would mean looking for uranium on larger bodies, like the moon. https://www.space.com/6904-uranium-moon.html https://www.space.com/6904-uranium-moon.html
twohlix_ 9y ago
I'd wager that uranium (as with all the heavier elements) is spread throughout the solar system as it is forged and spread in stars going supernovae/hypernovae
logfromblammo 9y ago
Everything in the solar system is pretty much made out of the same stuff. There is uranium on Earth, the Moon, and Mars, so we can reasonably expect it to be present on other less massive objects in the solar system. But you also have to consider that materials stratify based on their density and chemical affinity. The Goldschmidt classification of an element defines sort of chemical cliques for the elements. Lithophile elements like to oxidize into minerals and float on top of any dense metal core. For instance, the dominant aluminum ore bauxite is frequently found close to the surface of the earth. To find those elements in space, you look for a rock-dominant (oxidized) asteroid. Siderophile elements like to form solid solutions with iron, and may not oxidize to lighter minerals readily. Elements like gold and platinum are considered rare on Earth not because the planet does not have a great quantity of them, but because the vast majority of that mass is way down in the iron core, where we cannot yet reach it. The mass near the surface is only there due to quirks of geology. To find those elements in space, you look for a metals-dominant asteroid. Chalcophile elements like sulfur, and on Earth their rarity (in terms of the amount we can dig up) is between lithophiles and siderophiles, because they tend to stratify above the iron-lovers and below the oxygen-lovers. The only elements that may be difficult to find would be those that form volatile molecules, because they typically get gradually blown away by solar wind, or stripped away all at once by a catastrophic cosmic event. Uranium and thorium are lithophile elements, so they shouldn't be too difficult to find on rocky, oxygen-heavy asteroids. Just look for low albedo and alpha particles from pitchblende. But beware that absent the ore-concentrating processes of large planets, you may have to process a lot of rock to get a usable quantity of fissile elements.

jasonwatkinspdx 9y ago

> Once freed from the widespread and totally irrational fear of nuclear technology here on Earth Look, I'm pro nuclear, but I"m also really tired of seeing this straw man. Responsible management of nuclear power requires institutions that can act responsibly to manage risk on time scales of the order of centuries. Recent history shows that many of our institutions fall short of what's really needed to do that. An event like Fukushima was a statistical certainty, and warnings prior to the event that warned of exactly what would happen were ignored. I don't think the answer to this is to turn our back on the potential of nuclear power. I do think we should be unflinchingly real about how hard and dangerous it is.

abtinf 9y ago
Dangerous compared to what? What is your standard of measure for danger? What are the alternatives to provide vital energy for human flourishing? What was the death toll from Fukushima? Zero. Everything at Fukushima went wrong, and yet only 8 out of 2400 workers were exposed to out-of-tolerate levels of radiation. None of the plant's neighbors got sick, and no discernible increase in the rate of cancer deaths is expected. Radiation is everywhere in the real world, it is a natural part of life, yet we treat it like any amount is a lethal danger, when in low doses it is not a meaningful threat. Fukushima was a non-event, and yet it caused a movement to shut down all nuclear power. Fear of nuclear is totally irrational. The more we embrace nuclear power, the greater its benefits to human well being. Nuclear is safer than every other form of large scale energy generation ever devised. The only concern with nuclear plants is a large release of radiation, which is unlikely due to the layers of shielding and containment. The scaremonger's goto example of chernobyl lacked such safety measures because the Soviets didn't care about human life. Also worth reading is The Health Hazards of NOT Going Nuclear: https://www.amazon.com/Health-Hazards-Not-Going-Nuclear/dp/0911762175 https://www.amazon.com/Health-Hazards-Not-Going-Nuclear/dp/0...
- jasonwatkinspdx 9y ago
  I am very familiar with the details of Fukushima, the prevalence of natural radiation, and the health risks of alternatives. I again believe it is entirely dishonest to call fear of nuclear power irrational. Was it a mistake for Germany and Japan to shift generation away from nuclear? Yes IMO. But it's absurd to call an event that required mass evacuation harmless.

gwicks56 9y ago

I freaking LOVED that game. Serious time suck though.