3 ms·

> Regarding Isaac Arthur (I'd link the video, but there's so many), he definitely doesn't make that kind of rookie mistake, so I assume it's more of a tongue-in

> Regarding Isaac Arthur (I'd link the video, but there's so many), he definitely doesn't make that kind of rookie mistake, so I assume it's more of a tongue-in-cheek remark, to address popular concerns and show solutions — drive the point that a space-faring civilization is equipped to deal with such 'problems'. I guess I should say that there is one other advantage of an asteroid that's already on a collision course - if you can aerocapture instead of doing that propulsively, you only really have to pay the delta v to get to the asteroid in the first place. The problem is that the asteroid might have structural issues that intense acceleration exposes, and that people might be a tad leery of having a large asteroid on a course where if you miss by 100km you kill a billion. > Just curious, at the current pace (considering 1950-today) and barring any major stall/setback/boost (no WW3 etc), what would be your personal estimate for the first profitable mining operations? 10, 30, 100 years? I'll say "10 years after we get cheap ($500/kg class) launches" - which might be within the decade, or might be never. I think asteroid mining might still be profitable at far higher launch costs, but the risk and the startup costs would be far higher to the point that it probably won't happen.

K0SM0S 7y ago
> people might be a tad leery of having a large asteroid on a course where if you miss by 100km you kill a billion Fair point! If unsure, we'd better not play this game too close from home. > I'll say "10 years after we get cheap ($500/kg class) launches" - which might be within the decade, or might be never. I think asteroid mining might still be profitable at far higher launch costs, but the risk and the startup costs would be far higher to the point that it probably won't happen. Thank you for sharing that perspective. One game-changer is to build some sort of structure around or far enough from Earth's gravity (I'm partial to orbital rings); anything that can be built now using earth materials only (at least the basic stages), to kickstart a space industry. Though I suspect there are bigger political and economical challenges than technical ones on the way to cross this upward bound.

K0SM0S 7y ago

> people might be a tad leery of having a large asteroid on a course where if you miss by 100km you kill a billion Fair point! If unsure, we'd better not play this game too close from home. > I'll say "10 years after we get cheap ($500/kg class) launches" - which might be within the decade, or might be never. I think asteroid mining might still be profitable at far higher launch costs, but the risk and the startup costs would be far higher to the point that it probably won't happen. Thank you for sharing that perspective. One game-changer is to build some sort of structure around or far enough from Earth's gravity (I'm partial to orbital rings); anything that can be built now using earth materials only (at least the basic stages), to kickstart a space industry. Though I suspect there are bigger political and economical challenges than technical ones on the way to cross this upward bound.