8 ms·

The true value of it is not on earth but in space itself. If it is used to build mega city sized space station then its value would be multi fold of that on ea

by achow 6y ago

The true value of it is not on earth but in space itself. If it is used to build mega city sized space station then its value would be multi fold of that on earth.

CodeGlitch 6y ago
This. Space based mining is going to be huge, and probably the real reason spacex exists, as colonising Mars doesn't really make any sense. Building our own habitats in space will be how we populate the solar system, rather than trying to live on a dead rock like Mars.
- ctdonath 6y ago
  The sense of colonizing Mars is abundance of raw materials (a whole planet worth right there) and the convenience of gravity (put something down, it tends to stay there). Space has benefits, but is defined by being devoid of resources, and stuff tends to drift off.
  - Turing_Machine 6y ago
    Right. Mars real estate is not as desirable as Earth real estate, but on the other hand there's a whole planet just sitting there ripe for the taking. Someone is going to take it, you can bet.
ctdonath 6y ago
This. Moving stuff up and down the gravity well is expensive. Having an abundant supply of mundane metals already above that well would vastly improve launch costs, there being much less to launch. The trick is getting asteroid mining, transport, and refining costs under $640/lb (current Falcon Heavy to-LEO cost).
- spockz 6y ago
  You don’t need to go under it per se. The supply of falcon heavy launches is still limited in both quantity and scheduling. I’m sure its price will go up when the demand increases to provide for ferrying material up.
  - ctdonath 6y ago
    1. Supply of Heavy launches seems a matter of little demand. There’s a big enough profit margin that seems little reason to get more greedy - they WANT increased demand. 2. Competition is the issue: can we mine & deliver metals from an asteroid to LEO cheaper than lifting same out of the gravity well? 2b. Might that consideration of ground-to-orbit resources include removing materials from future terrestrial use?
mattximus 6y ago
That's kinda what I was thinking. Everyone who is saying 'oh the massive supply would send the current market prices to 0' isn't thinking about the massive economic growth potential of new space based building activities.
jgrowl 6y ago
Might also be worth nothing that there may be all kinds of new tech from fabrication methods that will only work in zero-g too. Factories in space means that everything in space becomes cheaper. The logistics would probably be hell to start, but I have to think that machines could be much simpler if they didn't have to worry about weight and heat as much. I am probably being naive here about how hard it would be, but I can't help but be excited for the future.

by achow 6y ago

The true value of it is not on earth but in space itself. If it is used to build mega city sized space station then its value would be multi fold of that on earth.

CodeGlitch 6y ago

This. Space based mining is going to be huge, and probably the real reason spacex exists, as colonising Mars doesn't really make any sense. Building our own habitats in space will be how we populate the solar system, rather than trying to live on a dead rock like Mars.

ctdonath 6y ago
The sense of colonizing Mars is abundance of raw materials (a whole planet worth right there) and the convenience of gravity (put something down, it tends to stay there). Space has benefits, but is defined by being devoid of resources, and stuff tends to drift off.
- Turing_Machine 6y ago
  Right. Mars real estate is not as desirable as Earth real estate, but on the other hand there's a whole planet just sitting there ripe for the taking. Someone is going to take it, you can bet.

ctdonath 6y ago

This. Moving stuff up and down the gravity well is expensive. Having an abundant supply of mundane metals already above that well would vastly improve launch costs, there being much less to launch. The trick is getting asteroid mining, transport, and refining costs under $640/lb (current Falcon Heavy to-LEO cost).

spockz 6y ago
You don’t need to go under it per se. The supply of falcon heavy launches is still limited in both quantity and scheduling. I’m sure its price will go up when the demand increases to provide for ferrying material up.
- ctdonath 6y ago
  1. Supply of Heavy launches seems a matter of little demand. There’s a big enough profit margin that seems little reason to get more greedy - they WANT increased demand. 2. Competition is the issue: can we mine & deliver metals from an asteroid to LEO cheaper than lifting same out of the gravity well? 2b. Might that consideration of ground-to-orbit resources include removing materials from future terrestrial use?

mattximus 6y ago

That's kinda what I was thinking. Everyone who is saying 'oh the massive supply would send the current market prices to 0' isn't thinking about the massive economic growth potential of new space based building activities.

jgrowl 6y ago

Might also be worth nothing that there may be all kinds of new tech from fabrication methods that will only work in zero-g too. Factories in space means that everything in space becomes cheaper. The logistics would probably be hell to start, but I have to think that machines could be much simpler if they didn't have to worry about weight and heat as much. I am probably being naive here about how hard it would be, but I can't help but be excited for the future.