4 ms·

It is quite expensive to send material to an orbit around earth. A quick search says $22.000 per kilo. The price of gold per kilo is about $45.000. So wouldnt i

by fxj 7y ago

It is quite expensive to send material to an orbit around earth. A quick search says $22.000 per kilo. The price of gold per kilo is about $45.000. So wouldnt it make more sense to keep the gold in the orbit and use it to build things in space? Also the potential energy of the gold has to go somewhere when it enters the earth's atmosphere resulting in additional warming.

cma 7y ago
> Also the potential energy of the gold has to go somewhere when it enters the earth's atmosphere resulting in additional warming. That would get quickly radiated away. There would be some tiny increase if you had a sustained amount of it constantly coming in.
- fxj 7y ago
  Why should it be quickly radiated away? What makes the heat different from the energy that is already stored in the atmosphere? In total it would be the energy of a large asteroid being smashed on earth. (energy conservation)
Scoundreller 7y ago
I think you need to look at the cost of bringing gold back to earth from orbit.
- fxj 7y ago
  It does not matter whether it is gold or anything else. Any material is more valuable in space than on earth because you have to transport it to space. So you could mine an asteroid for 2 kg of anything and it would be as valuable as 1 kg of gold on earth.
  - seiferteric 7y ago
    I don't know, what would they do with a kg of gold in space? I think the only raw materials that would be worth anything in space today is like water, rocket fuel, oxygen, hydrogen etc. We generally only send finished goods into space, like satellites. Raw metals would only be valuable to keep in space if you had some manufacturing capability there. Also I think we are really really far away from doing something like manufacturing a satellite in space. So in general, I don't think that "2 kg of anything" in space is worth 1kg of gold on earth.
  - dredmorbius 7y ago
    That presumes supply and demand are equivalent. In situ and on Earth are effectively two distinct, and poorly arbitrageable, economic domains. In gold boom towns, say, as in the California and Alaskan gold rushes, gold nuggets or dust were used in everyday commerce. But at a sharp discount to their value elsewhere. See also drug value to farmer vs. street, or prices of oil at wellhead vs. end-user, especially in early days (say, 1859-1930).
T-A 7y ago
> additional warming Some perspective needed. According to [1], Earth absorbs 3.85e24 J/year from the sun. One kg of mass falling to Earth from infinity (i.e. at escape velocity, 11.2 km/s) has kinetic energy (mv^2)/2 ~ 6.27e7 J. So you would need to drop 6.14e16 kg/year on Earth to match the solar contribution. Something minor like 1000 metric tons (1e6 kg) per year would only contribute 1.63e-11 of what we get from the sun, or roughly 0.0005 seconds worth of sunlight. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energy#Potential https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energy#Potential

by fxj 7y ago

cma 7y ago

> Also the potential energy of the gold has to go somewhere when it enters the earth's atmosphere resulting in additional warming. That would get quickly radiated away. There would be some tiny increase if you had a sustained amount of it constantly coming in.

fxj 7y ago
Why should it be quickly radiated away? What makes the heat different from the energy that is already stored in the atmosphere? In total it would be the energy of a large asteroid being smashed on earth. (energy conservation)

Scoundreller 7y ago

I think you need to look at the cost of bringing gold back to earth from orbit.

fxj 7y ago
It does not matter whether it is gold or anything else. Any material is more valuable in space than on earth because you have to transport it to space. So you could mine an asteroid for 2 kg of anything and it would be as valuable as 1 kg of gold on earth.
- seiferteric 7y ago
  I don't know, what would they do with a kg of gold in space? I think the only raw materials that would be worth anything in space today is like water, rocket fuel, oxygen, hydrogen etc. We generally only send finished goods into space, like satellites. Raw metals would only be valuable to keep in space if you had some manufacturing capability there. Also I think we are really really far away from doing something like manufacturing a satellite in space. So in general, I don't think that "2 kg of anything" in space is worth 1kg of gold on earth.
- dredmorbius 7y ago
  That presumes supply and demand are equivalent. In situ and on Earth are effectively two distinct, and poorly arbitrageable, economic domains. In gold boom towns, say, as in the California and Alaskan gold rushes, gold nuggets or dust were used in everyday commerce. But at a sharp discount to their value elsewhere. See also drug value to farmer vs. street, or prices of oil at wellhead vs. end-user, especially in early days (say, 1859-1930).

T-A 7y ago

> additional warming Some perspective needed. According to [1], Earth absorbs 3.85e24 J/year from the sun. One kg of mass falling to Earth from infinity (i.e. at escape velocity, 11.2 km/s) has kinetic energy (mv^2)/2 ~ 6.27e7 J. So you would need to drop 6.14e16 kg/year on Earth to match the solar contribution. Something minor like 1000 metric tons (1e6 kg) per year would only contribute 1.63e-11 of what we get from the sun, or roughly 0.0005 seconds worth of sunlight. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energy#Potential https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energy#Potential