3 ms·
That 2% is still a big cost. I think In-Situ Resource Utilization is what we need to make it cheap enough to do more in LEO. I know it's insane but mining wate
by xupybd 3y ago
That 2% is still a big cost. I think In-Situ Resource Utilization is what we need to make it cheap enough to do more in LEO.
I know it's insane but mining water in space and sending it back to earth seems to be one of the best options.
Edit:
If you're down voting can you let me know why?
- prepend 3y agoI remember reading about space mining and the first target is ice to haul back to orbit for water. It was something I didn’t think about but makes sense because water is so heavy to get into orbit.
- ericbarrett 3y agoI don't think it's insane at all, you raise a good point. There's a lot of H2O out there and it's a lot less energy to get it from ~the asteroid belt to Earth orbit than from Earth ground to orbit. Obviously we're not there yet from a technology or logistics standpoint, but I'm sure it's in humanity's future.
- FreshStart 3y agoShape it into space concrete aka pykrete by adding long fibers made from silicon.
- Shawnj2 3y agoI agree, but I don’t think it makes as much sense for the time scale of the ISS since IMO by the time asteroid mining is successful, the ISS will be towards the end of its life. I think this is something that would be more worth putting in the general mission plan of an ISS successor or Gateway.
- hulitu 3y ago> That 2% is still a big cost They can use it as fertilizer.