Random Insanity Alliance Forum, Mark V
Cactuar Zone => Random lnsanity => Topic started by: Shadow on April 24, 2012, 10:56:03 pm
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_Resources (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_Resources)
http://www.space.com/15416-asteroid-mining-planetary-resources-hiring.html (http://www.space.com/15416-asteroid-mining-planetary-resources-hiring.html)
:awesome:
I hope they succeed.
-
I don't really see how they can make this at all cost effective.
I could definitely be convinced to apply though.
-
It'll probably be tricky but if they can actually succeed the potential returns are apparently rather large. So I shall wish them luck. An interesting endeavor at the very least.
http://thenextweb.com/insider/2012/04/24/planetary-resources-asteroid-mining-project-sounds-like-pure-science-fiction-but-its-closer-than-you-think/ (http://thenextweb.com/insider/2012/04/24/planetary-resources-asteroid-mining-project-sounds-like-pure-science-fiction-but-its-closer-than-you-think/)
The company intends to then mine selected rare materials that could then be sold to industries that rely on them, potentially reducing the cost of expensive equipment and increasing supplies of metals that are very hard to find on Earth.
Planetary Resources co-founder and co-chairman Eric Anderson told Space.com: ”If you look at space resources, the logical next step is to go to the near-Earth asteroids. They’re just so valuable, and so easy to reach energetically. Near-Earth asteroids really are the low-hanging fruit of the solar system.”The company will concentrate on the extraction of platinum-group metals — particularly ruthenium, rhodium, palladium, osmium, iridium, and platinum. The reason for this is that just one 500-meter wide platinum-rich asteroid could provide more of these metals than the total amount ever mined on Earth.
So, whilst it may be expensive to launch probes and physically extract the materials, Planetary Resources intends to make its money back by increasing the supplies of rare metals for industry and use within “defibrillators, hand-held devices, TV and computer monitors and catalysts,” says Anderson.
With many asteroids containing large amounts of water, the company would also be able to sell the water in space, helping to facilitate the growing of food, provide radiation shielding for spaceships and provide the proponents for the development of rocket fuels (hydrogen and oxygen).
It almost sounds too far-fetched but it has piqued the interest of Google’s Larry Page and Eric Schmidt, James Cameron and other high-profile space-enthusiasts. The company is also said to be in talks with governments to raise funding for the project, which could then open up extraction to private companies in the future.
-
http://www.planetaryresources.com/ (http://www.planetaryresources.com/)
-
Someone mention this to NZ's govt so they stop wanting to mine our national parks.
-
you have a go
Someone mention this to NZ's govt so they stop wanting to mine our national parks.
you have a gov?
-
quick, someone give them some american flags to plant.
-
I've been mining asteroids for years *adjusts his monocle as he flies his hulk*
In reality,
The amount of minerals they could get from a single asteroid would equal more than has been mined by humans ever, and the best part, is that it's relatively easy to mine, especially since asteroids are basically just large chunks of Iron, silicon, copper, and other resources.
I've actually researched into this a great deal.
And llama, no country can claim an orbital body, except I think the Us signed the pact after claiming the moon.
-
Well some countries technically can since not everybody signed the Outer Space Treaty (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty - "outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means"). Only 100 countries have signed it so far though that does include all of the major / space-faring nations.
-
The economics of getting up there aren't easy, but once your operation is set up, sending material back to Earth is all gravitationally downhill, and therefore cheap as hell. Add that to the fact that you can deliver directly to where your productis needed, and the supply chain would be cheap as hell.
Now the real question is whether you want a private company to develop the means to wipe out all life on Earth by orbital bombardment, of if you don't think that could ever happen, then wonder about the implications of a spotless safety record. Until they make a mistake.
-
unfortunatly, I think that space exploration is going to have to go commercial for awhile if we want to save it. Thanks to Obaraka Bin Cutbacks, Nasa is pretty gutted and won't be doing anything fancy for awhile.
I mean, instead of cutbacks he could have maybe, oh I don't know, had people investigate the MASSIVE amount of fraud involved with unemployment and disability? I seem to remember someone from the government saying that an estimated 30% or more of the money paid by unemployment is fraudlent (as in, paid to people with jobs), not only that, but upto an additional 20% is going to people not even looking for jobs, but just manipulating the system.
Does Obama have this MASSIVE amount of fraud investigated? Nope, he raises the budget for it and guts Nasa.
Don't even get me started on disability. I know a lot of people need it, but a good percent of that is also fraudlent. And what is with fat people getting disability? They are too fat to work, so we give them money to buy MORE FOOD? How about we don't give them money, they can't get food, lose weight, and REJOIN THE WORKING CLASS.
Seriously, fraud infuriates me to no end, especially when instead of calling for accountability, our president decides to just cut funding from what was not just our future (like it or not, we are gonna have to colonize space eventually), but was the one single thing the US does that noone could bitch about or hate us for.
He had the shuttle plan canceled, and we were going to pay the russians about half of what we were paying to develop the shuttle to put our people in space, then guess what? Russian technology FAILED and now we are probably gonna have to abandon the ISS, and I guarantee that the second that happens, if we don't bring it crashing down skylab style, the Chinese are gonna take it before we can get people back up.
And PROTIP: Russian isn't giving the money we paid them to transport astronauts back to us. Basically, we just GAVE them a few billion dollars.
/TEMPORARILY END RANT WHILE I ATTEND CLASS
-
The Space shuttle was already fully developed, and ran its course - it was was scheduled to retire, and Obama just didn't try to extend it.
Here's why:
1) Every space shuttle launch cost over a half a billion dollars - just to launch, never mind billions in development.
2) Burt Rutan's space tourist vehicle cost 27 million $ for the complete development and first flight to space, including mothership. (granted it isn't as capable, but what could he do with 500 million?)
3) The economics of sending a plane into space that comes back never paid off
4) The one capability that the Space Shuttle has that noone else has is the ability to return a payload FROM orbit.
5) The US revealed some time ago the X-37B, a drone space shuttle that can indeed capture a satellite and bring it home...
6) Meanwhile, the Russians have been using the Soyuz for more than 4 decades. It is sturdy, extremely reliable, and proven when it comes to getting people into and back from space.
7) The ISS is pretty well complete, so the need to fly a big payload with what was effectively a mobile workshop is over.
What I am upset about is why they didn't leave one space shuttle in orbit at the end of the program. Over time it could have been modded, and fueled up, even just as a massive drone, and sent off into the wilds of space...
-
Pretty sure the X-37 program is long dead. But, it seems Ares program was picking back up. I'd done quite a bit of work on a few components, and recently the company I did the work for contacted me about obtaining the models to do some follow on work.
-
It seems a little vague, but it looks like it is being kept alive by low-level funding of some kind.
http://rt.com/news/space-plane-x-37b-programme-179/ (http://rt.com/news/space-plane-x-37b-programme-179/)
Either way, the military possibilities of a platform like this guarantee that the tech will be alive one way or another. It builds on the Space Shuttle experience, and takes it to a new level. You could even fit a person in it (an unlikely use for it), and you can easily see how it could be militarised to meet the stated US military requirement to strike anywhere on earth within 1 hour. Or turned into a returnable satellite.
-
the "reliable" russian system, isn't functioning, which is why we have to abandon the ISS.
Also, i know about the shuttles, but he cut development from the program that was to replace the shuttles. Thats why I won't forgive him.
-
I dont get it - whats not functioning?
-
the "reliable" russian system, isn't functioning, which is why we have to abandon the ISS.
Also, i know about the shuttles, but he cut development from the program that was to replace the shuttles. Thats why I won't forgive him.
You're right. It would have been much better to fund the space program and let the economy rot.
-
the "reliable" russian system, isn't functioning, which is why we have to abandon the ISS.
Also, i know about the shuttles, but he cut development from the program that was to replace the shuttles. Thats why I won't forgive him.
You're right. It would have been much better to fund the space program and let the economy rot.
Didn't Bush cancel the Venturestar? I thought that was the shuttle replacement.
-
the "reliable" russian system, isn't functioning, which is why we have to abandon the ISS.
Also, i know about the shuttles, but he cut development from the program that was to replace the shuttles. Thats why I won't forgive him.
You're right. It would have been much better to fund the space program and let the economy rot.
Oh you're one of those people.
-
the "reliable" russian system, isn't functioning, which is why we have to abandon the ISS.
Also, i know about the shuttles, but he cut development from the program that was to replace the shuttles. Thats why I won't forgive him.
You're right. It would have been much better to fund the space program and let the economy rot.
Didn't Bush cancel the Venturestar? I thought that was the shuttle replacement.
Ever since the Cold War ended, the American space program has continued to have its budget cut. This is going to lead to the privatizing of space, making Asteroid Mining and over companies focusing on space much more liable.
-
It was the privatisation of colonisation that made the british so successful.
-
the "reliable" russian system, isn't functioning, which is why we have to abandon the ISS.
Also, i know about the shuttles, but he cut development from the program that was to replace the shuttles. Thats why I won't forgive him.
You're right. It would have been much better to fund the space program and let the economy rot.
As opposed to cut the space program, shower illegals with gifts, and let the economy rot?
Bush ended the X-33 program, Obama ended the research into a replacement program.
Also, Bush was the president who wanted to build a moonbase and had nasa start looking into asteroid mining (he cut both after 2001, but the group that was looking into asteroid mining got scooped up by that corporation)
-
It seems a little vague, but it looks like it is being kept alive by low-level funding of some kind.
http://rt.com/news/space-plane-x-37b-programme-179/ (http://rt.com/news/space-plane-x-37b-programme-179/)
Either way, the military possibilities of a platform like this guarantee that the tech will be alive one way or another. It builds on the Space Shuttle experience, and takes it to a new level. You could even fit a person in it (an unlikely use for it), and you can easily see how it could be militarised to meet the stated US military requirement to strike anywhere on earth within 1 hour. Or turned into a returnable satellite.
It must have been X-37A I was working on. Would have been '01-'03 timeframe, so that's in line with them pulling the plug in '04.
Apparently Boeing just started work on the X-37C, which would be a scaled up manned version.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-37 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-37)
Didn't Bush cancel the Venturestar? I thought that was the shuttle replacement.
Never heard of it.
Oh you're one of those people.
Fuck you man. I lost a lot of work when they pulled the funding from Ares.
-
Jenne,
Are you saying you are a rocket scientist? We should get together and have a chat in the rarified air - I am a brain surgeon.
The Venturestar was the X-33.
Has Ares been cancelled?
-
Probably not in the sense you are thinking, but a lot of my work has been tied to the space and defense industries. I'm mechanical, not aero, so I deal more in structures than flight.
I don't know if it was ever totally canceled, but it's been revived. About 5 months ago, I got contacted by the company I was doing work for looking for old files so they could start work on it again.
-
So what is Apo bitching about that Obama did?
-
Oh you're one of those people.
Fuck you man. I lost a lot of work when they pulled the funding from Ares.
And both of those are unfortunate. Point?
-
The point is, if you were offered to go on a colony ship to Europa, and had to leave everyone you know behind for the rest of your life (though you could always Skype with them), would you go?
-
It would depend on how safe it was on europa, like, did we test the equipment and make sure everything was good to go?
It would be situational, but if I believed that there was a good chance or the mission being successful, I'd go in a heartbeat.
-
How about if you knew all of the equipment was reliable, except for one item, which was only 98% reliable, and you didn't know which one?
-
Maybe. Knowing NASA and the "double-up" system they use, I'd probably be fine with it.
-
Everything on these systems is double redundant.
-
98% x 98% = 96%
-
98% x 98% = 96%
That's the odds of both of them working. You only need 1.
-
Ok, so what's the equation? is it 2% X 2% = 0.04% chance of a serial breakdown?