5 ms·

I agree that for every resource we need, getting that resource on earth (if it exists on earth) will always make more sense than seeking it in space. Humanity s

I agree that for every resource we need, getting that resource on earth (if it exists on earth) will always make more sense than seeking it in space. Humanity should always seek to fulfill its needs from terrestrial sources. We shouldn't mistake space exploration for infrastructure building. At the same time - this doesn't mean we shouldn't explore space! Just that we should understand that exploration as low-to-no-return investigations, not investments in the foreseeable future. I also don't think we've reached the limit for that kind of research. Our society could safely tolerate much higher levels of investment in space exploration (as long as it remains a very small proportion of all investments). We have many other "pure research" fields which are key to long-term health, but do not meaningfully contribute to our current survival. Like Roko's Basilisk, this is a good reminder of the dangers of using resources that we have today to try to reach a future we may never see. The human ability to plan for an imagined future is key to our humanity, but so is our ability to deceive ourselves.

freeqaz 6y ago
If we captured an asteroid we would immediately double or triple the world's supply of metals like platinum. They simply are not plentiful for us on the crust. I like to believe that we can achieve this within our lifetime. Having the price of certain rarer metals come down significantly would be amazing!
- aeturnum 6y ago
  Are there projects that required more rare metals than exist on earth? I agree that it would be nice to have more things, but I'm skeptical of the numbers working out. The Apollo program brought back ~850lbs of moon rocks and cost ~$150bn. Obviously the primary purpose of the program wasn't mining, but I think what I said above applies. It might work out and we might get a lot, but we should make investment choices with the assumption that it won't. If we are ever in a situation where civilization makes asteroid mining work or it falls apart it would be very bad because asteroid mining is hard! It's likely easier to use platinum more efficiently.
  - m4rtink 6y ago
    From the top of my head making all wires out of gold you would get much better conductivity & avoid the issues copper has with oxidation. I'm sure there are examples for other currently expensive materials. Also aluminum used to be super expensive and only used for jewelry until it became dirt cheap and is used for about anything.
- zeristor 6y ago
  Come down siginificantly? So much depends on demand, one of the more sophisticated analyses I've seen realised that Nickel (at the time) was a good bet since it was fairly expensive and in high demand. Also people hold gold as a store of value, if it becomes cheap then they might as well sell that too. Sure we could start using gold as ship ballast...
  - freeqaz 6y ago
    Very much so! But the idea is fascinating. What if the price of platinum was on par with aluminum? What kind of products could exist that simply can out today? This[0] article puts it into perspective just how much metals exist out there. Seems like most of the precious metals we have access to are from previous asteroid collisions. There is a theory that the last age ~12k years ago was from an asteroid impact, and that it can be traced due to changes in platinum levels. Whoever figures out how to mine metals from space rocks is going to have an interest problem to face. They can't just dump it all onto the market -- they'll have to pull a move similar to the diamond industry. Stockpile it and constrain supply (because of their monopoly) to keep the prices high enough to make a profit from the (risky) endeavor. One can dream :) 0: https://strangesounds.org/2019/06/asteroid-16-psyche-gold-metal-value-mining-nasa-video.html https://strangesounds.org/2019/06/asteroid-16-psyche-gold-me...
JoeAltmaier 6y ago
Once the bulk of humanity is 'in space' (on planetary bodies or in stations outside of earth) then the goalposts change! Sending things back to sad ol earth becomes unsupportable.
- aeturnum 6y ago
  I mean, that's true! Your scenario also places our investment in learning how to live in space in the past. If we're already living in space then, of course, investing in learning how to live in space worked out! This is what I was saying at the end about investing resources we have now into futures we may never see. If you argue from the point of view that projects will always work out as you imagine they will, then your investing ideas will always make sense. I just don't think that's how things work in practice.
  - JoeAltmaier 6y ago
    That's a pretty negative view - never try anything that isn't sure to work out? Am I understand the argument properly? We'd still all be living in Europe (or Africa!) if that was the way folks always decided.
    - aeturnum 6y ago
      Again, I am pro space exploration. It's about how we understand resource expenditures. Spending resources to research how to improve crop yields cannot replace food production. You have to invest resources to feed everyone with current technology, then spend surpluses on researching improvements. We should explore space, but we shouldn't expect exploring space to solve our current problems.
- m4rtink 6y ago
  Well, Earth has one big advantage for sending something back - the atmosphere! Free deceleration and semi automatic landing system (add parachutes & airbags as necessary)! Just make sure to choose the right entry angle and speed, or else the locals won't like you. Either for burning op their packages or due to delivering them rather too directly to the surface at high speed.
nostromo 6y ago
I don't agree about sourcing supplies on Earth for the simple reason that mining operations on Earth ravage the countryside and leave it permanently dead and poisoned. https://edgy.app/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/mining.jpg https://edgy.app/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/mining.jpg https://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/2d6c839bf3889ca045acde28d7be7259 https://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/2d6c839bf3889ca045acde28... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Pit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Pit Many of these minerals exist in abundance on astroids, and I would love to see us protect the Earth by mining there instead of here.

freeqaz 6y ago

If we captured an asteroid we would immediately double or triple the world's supply of metals like platinum. They simply are not plentiful for us on the crust. I like to believe that we can achieve this within our lifetime. Having the price of certain rarer metals come down significantly would be amazing!

aeturnum 6y ago
Are there projects that required more rare metals than exist on earth? I agree that it would be nice to have more things, but I'm skeptical of the numbers working out. The Apollo program brought back ~850lbs of moon rocks and cost ~$150bn. Obviously the primary purpose of the program wasn't mining, but I think what I said above applies. It might work out and we might get a lot, but we should make investment choices with the assumption that it won't. If we are ever in a situation where civilization makes asteroid mining work or it falls apart it would be very bad because asteroid mining is hard! It's likely easier to use platinum more efficiently.
- m4rtink 6y ago
  From the top of my head making all wires out of gold you would get much better conductivity & avoid the issues copper has with oxidation. I'm sure there are examples for other currently expensive materials. Also aluminum used to be super expensive and only used for jewelry until it became dirt cheap and is used for about anything.
zeristor 6y ago
Come down siginificantly? So much depends on demand, one of the more sophisticated analyses I've seen realised that Nickel (at the time) was a good bet since it was fairly expensive and in high demand. Also people hold gold as a store of value, if it becomes cheap then they might as well sell that too. Sure we could start using gold as ship ballast...
- freeqaz 6y ago
  Very much so! But the idea is fascinating. What if the price of platinum was on par with aluminum? What kind of products could exist that simply can out today? This[0] article puts it into perspective just how much metals exist out there. Seems like most of the precious metals we have access to are from previous asteroid collisions. There is a theory that the last age ~12k years ago was from an asteroid impact, and that it can be traced due to changes in platinum levels. Whoever figures out how to mine metals from space rocks is going to have an interest problem to face. They can't just dump it all onto the market -- they'll have to pull a move similar to the diamond industry. Stockpile it and constrain supply (because of their monopoly) to keep the prices high enough to make a profit from the (risky) endeavor. One can dream :) 0: https://strangesounds.org/2019/06/asteroid-16-psyche-gold-metal-value-mining-nasa-video.html https://strangesounds.org/2019/06/asteroid-16-psyche-gold-me...

JoeAltmaier 6y ago

Once the bulk of humanity is 'in space' (on planetary bodies or in stations outside of earth) then the goalposts change! Sending things back to sad ol earth becomes unsupportable.

aeturnum 6y ago
I mean, that's true! Your scenario also places our investment in learning how to live in space in the past. If we're already living in space then, of course, investing in learning how to live in space worked out! This is what I was saying at the end about investing resources we have now into futures we may never see. If you argue from the point of view that projects will always work out as you imagine they will, then your investing ideas will always make sense. I just don't think that's how things work in practice.
- JoeAltmaier 6y ago
  That's a pretty negative view - never try anything that isn't sure to work out? Am I understand the argument properly? We'd still all be living in Europe (or Africa!) if that was the way folks always decided.
  - aeturnum 6y ago
    Again, I am pro space exploration. It's about how we understand resource expenditures. Spending resources to research how to improve crop yields cannot replace food production. You have to invest resources to feed everyone with current technology, then spend surpluses on researching improvements. We should explore space, but we shouldn't expect exploring space to solve our current problems.
m4rtink 6y ago
Well, Earth has one big advantage for sending something back - the atmosphere! Free deceleration and semi automatic landing system (add parachutes & airbags as necessary)! Just make sure to choose the right entry angle and speed, or else the locals won't like you. Either for burning op their packages or due to delivering them rather too directly to the surface at high speed.

nostromo 6y ago

I don't agree about sourcing supplies on Earth for the simple reason that mining operations on Earth ravage the countryside and leave it permanently dead and poisoned. https://edgy.app/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/mining.jpg https://edgy.app/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/mining.jpg https://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/2d6c839bf3889ca045acde28d7be7259 https://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/2d6c839bf3889ca045acde28... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Pit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Pit Many of these minerals exist in abundance on astroids, and I would love to see us protect the Earth by mining there instead of here.