7 ms·

The comment by Benjamin Stockton on the article page is spot-on: >I just wonder if humanity’s adventurous nature is leading us away from a proper focus on the

by krunck 1y ago

The comment by Benjamin Stockton on the article page is spot-on: >I just wonder if humanity’s adventurous nature is leading us away from a proper focus on the sustainability of our civilization, our specie, and our fragile planetary environment? But we still need spaceflight at least for planetary defense against asteroids, mining asteroids(so we don't have to mine Earth), etc.

sorcerer-mar 1y ago
What resources are on asteroids that justify the energy expenditure to get from space and back? Can't be many of them...
- kibwen 1y ago
  The most compelling economic reason to pursue the technology of asteroid mining (at least as far as Earth's gravity well is concerned) is not to ever actually launch any serious asteroid mining operations, but rather to fool those who own gold into believing that you have the capability to devalue gold at your whim, and thereby accept a small ransom to not go asteroid mining.
  - dash2 1y ago
    Wouldn’t work because of the collective action problem among gold owners!
    - vkou 1y ago
      And because someone shorting gold would have a financial incentive to do it himself.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > What resources are on asteroids that justify the energy expenditure to get from space and back? With chemical rockets, not much. With "a propellant-less propulsion propulsion system such as solar sails or electric sails," bringing water (propellant) to low-earth orbit starts making sense [1], as does mining platinum, but only if "the quantity of platinum from space would substitute an equal quantity of terrestrial platinum," i.e. moving heavy industry off the Earth's surface [1]. Given asteroid-mining profitability is dominated by "the throughput rate, which depends on the mining process," it's possibly to see a path to certain rare-earth minerals becoming profitable to mine in space if environmental controls on Earth are tightened while constant-thrust propulsion technologies advance. [1] https://arxiv.org/pdf/1810.03836 https://arxiv.org/pdf/1810.03836
  - sorcerer-mar 1y ago
    Just skimmed but does this answer the question of getting to and from the surface of earth? Or are we just stockpiling platinum in LEO for some reason?
    - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
      > does this answer the question of getting to and from the surface of earth? Yes. (Deöbiting from LEO is cheap, like 90 m/s for the Space Shuttle, because you can use the atmosphere.)
      - sorcerer-mar 1y ago
        … Presumably the problem is mostly getting up…? Is the plan to just drop hunks of platinum or do we need to put reentry vehicles up there?
        randallsquared 1y ago
        With a relatively small initial investment, you can build reentry vehicles out of the asteroid, depending on the specific composition.
        pfdietz 1y ago
        Or, just fashion the metal into ingots that are coated with an ablator (carbon, say) and allow them to enter as artificial meteorites. Suitably sized they will hit the ground at reasonable speed and can be dug up.
        Teever 1y ago
        Even better than carbon use an ablative made out of olivine that can sequester CO2 as it ablates. That way by offloading mining and refining into space to prevent the damage that these activities incur on earth you're also undoing damage to Earth from past human activities.
- tejtm 1y ago
  "What resources are on asteroids that justify the energy expenditure to get from space and back? Can't be many of them..." I suggest re-framing the the question as the cost of preserving the objectively limited and to the best of our knowledge singularly unique in the Universe resource, which is the surface of Earth. Acquiring resources that do not deplete or spoil the future of life on this planet should be in everyone's best interest.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - sorcerer-mar 1y ago
    Yeah no. Unless someone can answer basic questions like “what even comes close to net positive in energy expenditure to mine elsewhere,” then this is just a cover story. The reality is that saving our environment will be a whole set of difficult and profoundly boring solutions to real, known problems. Would be cool if we could solve it with badass rockets, explosions, big noises, and adventure, but the complete lack of even remotely convincing answers to first order questions on how this actually works belies the fact that it doesn’t. It makes no sense. We need to develop better plastics, proteins, and pesticides. Not send protein blobs to other planets because it looks cool in sci fi movies.
    - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
      > We need to develop better plastics, proteins, and pesticides. Not send protein blobs to other planets because it looks cool in sci fi movies The reality is more people get passsionate about working on things that look cool in sci fi movies than developing plastics, proteins and pesticides for a mediocre paycheque. This lesson--that the path to groundbreaking technologies is through inspirational moonshots, not committees prescribing what is and isn't necessary--is so thoroughly repeated throughout history that it's a wonder we keep missing it.
      - sorcerer-mar 1y ago
        Nobody referenced any sort of committee. Groundbreaking technologies are not created via moonshots. They’re created by decades of slog. Moonshots can launch from an unremarkable platform of slog, but the slog had to happen. You just cannot speedrun the vast majority of questions that need to be answered to power a breakthrough. That’s why I’ll question glory-chasers who want to sit on the rocket but can’t take a few thousands of pay cut to stare for a few years at a true problem that needs solving. Our species’ actual heroes are those who powered through the slog.
trhway 1y ago
Our civilization has been driven by expansion. Without it we'd probably collapse into a neurally-connected well-organized ant colony without need for further technological/social/economic progress (which would naturally select/cull out corresponding features in our brain). And, i'd guess that is possible one of the forms of the Great Filter stopping many civilizations. At 53 and good health, i'm contemplating that my end in 30-40 years would be me buying a one way to Mars and just exiting the habitat out without suit after enjoying a dinner with a Martian sunset view, breaking, even in such a small way, the chains of "We come from the earth, we return to the earth" :)
- sorcerer-mar 1y ago
  That's a truly awful way to die (all your fluids and gases suddenly surging through your tissue). Seems much easier to reframe the "chains" of earth into acceptance of a remarkable cycle that we're privileged to get a glimpse of from the inside and just die happily here with your loved ones.
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > Seems much easier to reframe the "chains" of earth into acceptance of a remarkable cycle that we're privileged to get a glimpse of from the inside and just die happily here with your loved ones This works for most people. Most humans didn't leave Africa or Mesopotamia or the Old World, either originally or in the Age of Exploration, and most Americans today don't have a passpport.
  - trhway 1y ago
    The technicalities would be worked out. The awfulness isn't a goal here. The acceptance would have me still in Russia :)
    - sorcerer-mar 1y ago
      Presumably you left Russia to get to something better, not worse on pretty much every dimension except novelty
madaxe_again 1y ago
I don’t know, GPS is quite useful, Landsat is too, along with the various other Earth imaging satellites and systems like modis and sentinel-2. Sure is good having food. Weather forecasts are nice. It’s also quite convenient to be able to use space based data services. It’s also useful for power grids to know when they’re about to be whacked by a CME. I’m sure sailors on sinking ships appreciate being rescued. But sure, we should solve all the problems on earth with one hand tied behind our backs until we can launch any more rockets.
usuallyalurker 1y ago
Not only is that comment a false dichotomy (we can both explore space and make humanity more sustainable at the same time), it also presumes that space exploration and sustainability are at odds with one another and not synergistic. Humans, simply by existing on Earth, have a huge and often negative impact on the environment. If we could somehow shift the human population off Earth, either by terraforming planets (like Mars) or creating artificial space habitats, it would have a huge positive impact on Earth's environment. We don't currently have the technology to do so - we would need space elevators to feasibly move humanity off Earth - but that doesn't mean we should move our attention away from space in the meantime.
- nradov 1y ago
  It's silly to think that eliminating human impact on Earth's environment is a positive goal. What's the point? Humans are literally part of the environment. (That doesn't mean we should cause wanton damage.) Even if it was possible to live in space I would stay right here, and I make no apologies for my impact.
- MrMorden 1y ago
  We can't even terraform the Empty Quarter. Doing it to Mars and then somehow giving that planet a magnetic field is fantasy.
d_silin 1y ago
It is incredibly toxic belief, easily weaponized against space exploration. There will be never enough resources for "sustainability of our civilization, our specie, and our fragile planetary environment".
- modo_mario 1y ago
  Isn't that "There will never be enough resources for..." line of thinking the toxic one? If we ever end up unable to outrun ourselves we might as well end it?
pyuser583 1y ago
It hasn’t distracted us at all. We need the secular spirituality space travel, and just gazing at the stars, offers.

by krunck 1y ago

sorcerer-mar 1y ago

What resources are on asteroids that justify the energy expenditure to get from space and back? Can't be many of them...

kibwen 1y ago
The most compelling economic reason to pursue the technology of asteroid mining (at least as far as Earth's gravity well is concerned) is not to ever actually launch any serious asteroid mining operations, but rather to fool those who own gold into believing that you have the capability to devalue gold at your whim, and thereby accept a small ransom to not go asteroid mining.
- dash2 1y ago
  Wouldn’t work because of the collective action problem among gold owners!
  - vkou 1y ago
    And because someone shorting gold would have a financial incentive to do it himself.
JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> What resources are on asteroids that justify the energy expenditure to get from space and back? With chemical rockets, not much. With "a propellant-less propulsion propulsion system such as solar sails or electric sails," bringing water (propellant) to low-earth orbit starts making sense [1], as does mining platinum, but only if "the quantity of platinum from space would substitute an equal quantity of terrestrial platinum," i.e. moving heavy industry off the Earth's surface [1]. Given asteroid-mining profitability is dominated by "the throughput rate, which depends on the mining process," it's possibly to see a path to certain rare-earth minerals becoming profitable to mine in space if environmental controls on Earth are tightened while constant-thrust propulsion technologies advance. [1] https://arxiv.org/pdf/1810.03836 https://arxiv.org/pdf/1810.03836
- sorcerer-mar 1y ago
  Just skimmed but does this answer the question of getting to and from the surface of earth? Or are we just stockpiling platinum in LEO for some reason?
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > does this answer the question of getting to and from the surface of earth? Yes. (Deöbiting from LEO is cheap, like 90 m/s for the Space Shuttle, because you can use the atmosphere.)
    - sorcerer-mar 1y ago
      … Presumably the problem is mostly getting up…? Is the plan to just drop hunks of platinum or do we need to put reentry vehicles up there?
      - randallsquared 1y ago
        With a relatively small initial investment, you can build reentry vehicles out of the asteroid, depending on the specific composition.
        pfdietz 1y ago
        Or, just fashion the metal into ingots that are coated with an ablator (carbon, say) and allow them to enter as artificial meteorites. Suitably sized they will hit the ground at reasonable speed and can be dug up.
        Teever 1y ago
        Even better than carbon use an ablative made out of olivine that can sequester CO2 as it ablates. That way by offloading mining and refining into space to prevent the damage that these activities incur on earth you're also undoing damage to Earth from past human activities.
tejtm 1y ago
"What resources are on asteroids that justify the energy expenditure to get from space and back? Can't be many of them..." I suggest re-framing the the question as the cost of preserving the objectively limited and to the best of our knowledge singularly unique in the Universe resource, which is the surface of Earth. Acquiring resources that do not deplete or spoil the future of life on this planet should be in everyone's best interest.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- sorcerer-mar 1y ago
  Yeah no. Unless someone can answer basic questions like “what even comes close to net positive in energy expenditure to mine elsewhere,” then this is just a cover story. The reality is that saving our environment will be a whole set of difficult and profoundly boring solutions to real, known problems. Would be cool if we could solve it with badass rockets, explosions, big noises, and adventure, but the complete lack of even remotely convincing answers to first order questions on how this actually works belies the fact that it doesn’t. It makes no sense. We need to develop better plastics, proteins, and pesticides. Not send protein blobs to other planets because it looks cool in sci fi movies.
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > We need to develop better plastics, proteins, and pesticides. Not send protein blobs to other planets because it looks cool in sci fi movies The reality is more people get passsionate about working on things that look cool in sci fi movies than developing plastics, proteins and pesticides for a mediocre paycheque. This lesson--that the path to groundbreaking technologies is through inspirational moonshots, not committees prescribing what is and isn't necessary--is so thoroughly repeated throughout history that it's a wonder we keep missing it.
    - sorcerer-mar 1y ago
      Nobody referenced any sort of committee. Groundbreaking technologies are not created via moonshots. They’re created by decades of slog. Moonshots can launch from an unremarkable platform of slog, but the slog had to happen. You just cannot speedrun the vast majority of questions that need to be answered to power a breakthrough. That’s why I’ll question glory-chasers who want to sit on the rocket but can’t take a few thousands of pay cut to stare for a few years at a true problem that needs solving. Our species’ actual heroes are those who powered through the slog.

trhway 1y ago

Our civilization has been driven by expansion. Without it we'd probably collapse into a neurally-connected well-organized ant colony without need for further technological/social/economic progress (which would naturally select/cull out corresponding features in our brain). And, i'd guess that is possible one of the forms of the Great Filter stopping many civilizations. At 53 and good health, i'm contemplating that my end in 30-40 years would be me buying a one way to Mars and just exiting the habitat out without suit after enjoying a dinner with a Martian sunset view, breaking, even in such a small way, the chains of "We come from the earth, we return to the earth" :)

sorcerer-mar 1y ago
That's a truly awful way to die (all your fluids and gases suddenly surging through your tissue). Seems much easier to reframe the "chains" of earth into acceptance of a remarkable cycle that we're privileged to get a glimpse of from the inside and just die happily here with your loved ones.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > Seems much easier to reframe the "chains" of earth into acceptance of a remarkable cycle that we're privileged to get a glimpse of from the inside and just die happily here with your loved ones This works for most people. Most humans didn't leave Africa or Mesopotamia or the Old World, either originally or in the Age of Exploration, and most Americans today don't have a passpport.
- trhway 1y ago
  The technicalities would be worked out. The awfulness isn't a goal here. The acceptance would have me still in Russia :)
  - sorcerer-mar 1y ago
    Presumably you left Russia to get to something better, not worse on pretty much every dimension except novelty

madaxe_again 1y ago

I don’t know, GPS is quite useful, Landsat is too, along with the various other Earth imaging satellites and systems like modis and sentinel-2. Sure is good having food. Weather forecasts are nice. It’s also quite convenient to be able to use space based data services. It’s also useful for power grids to know when they’re about to be whacked by a CME. I’m sure sailors on sinking ships appreciate being rescued. But sure, we should solve all the problems on earth with one hand tied behind our backs until we can launch any more rockets.

usuallyalurker 1y ago

Not only is that comment a false dichotomy (we can both explore space and make humanity more sustainable at the same time), it also presumes that space exploration and sustainability are at odds with one another and not synergistic. Humans, simply by existing on Earth, have a huge and often negative impact on the environment. If we could somehow shift the human population off Earth, either by terraforming planets (like Mars) or creating artificial space habitats, it would have a huge positive impact on Earth's environment. We don't currently have the technology to do so - we would need space elevators to feasibly move humanity off Earth - but that doesn't mean we should move our attention away from space in the meantime.

nradov 1y ago
It's silly to think that eliminating human impact on Earth's environment is a positive goal. What's the point? Humans are literally part of the environment. (That doesn't mean we should cause wanton damage.) Even if it was possible to live in space I would stay right here, and I make no apologies for my impact.
MrMorden 1y ago
We can't even terraform the Empty Quarter. Doing it to Mars and then somehow giving that planet a magnetic field is fantasy.

d_silin 1y ago

It is incredibly toxic belief, easily weaponized against space exploration. There will be never enough resources for "sustainability of our civilization, our specie, and our fragile planetary environment".

modo_mario 1y ago
Isn't that "There will never be enough resources for..." line of thinking the toxic one? If we ever end up unable to outrun ourselves we might as well end it?

pyuser583 1y ago

It hasn’t distracted us at all. We need the secular spirituality space travel, and just gazing at the stars, offers.