 [News] To space, and beyond!, Assorted cool space news |
  |
  Mar 2 2006, 04:48 PM
Post
#1
|
|
|
Shooting Target  Group: Validating Posts: 1,618 Joined: 29-January 03 From: Montevideo, Uruguay. Member No.: 3,992  |
|
 |
 
|
|
Mar 3 2006, 12:39 AM
Post
#2
|
|
|
Shadowrun Setting Nerd Group: Banned Posts: 3,632 Joined: 28-June 05 From: Pissing on pedestrians from my electronic ivory tower. Member No.: 7,473 |
So an asteroid has 20 trillion dollars worth of metals (which, btw, is flawed since if someone was to dump that all on the market at once the prices would take a nosedive). How do they plan on getting it to Earth to be in any way usable without killing all life on the planet?
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 3 2006, 12:54 AM
Post
#3
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,095 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Ontari-airee-o Member No.: 1,115 |
Send a crew from armageddon to blast it apart, have it get trapped in our gravity, and mine it at our leisure.
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 3 2006, 02:15 AM
Post
#4
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 217 Joined: 13-February 06 From: Teesprawl (originally); CAS (now) Member No.: 8,264 |
In that case you might like the following link:
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundam...925331.200.html Ka_ge |
|
|
|
|
Mar 3 2006, 03:25 AM
Post
#5
|
|
|
Midnight Toker Group: Members Posts: 7,686 Joined: 4-July 04 From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop Member No.: 6,456 |
There is no reason to bring any of 3554 Amun's resources back to Earth. In fact, it would be wasteful to do so. Set up manufacturing facilities in or on the asteroid and make goods exclusivly for use and for sale in space.
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 3 2006, 01:06 PM
Post
#6
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,428 Joined: 9-June 02 Member No.: 2,860 |
They're fun flights of fancy, but that's all they are. The Space Elevator article ignores some of the practical problems of establishing an elevator. For example, it says: "The real problem is that, at $500 per gram, nanotubes are currently too expensive, and worldwide production is estimated to be less than 100 pounds per day." No, that's not the real problem. The real problem is that bulk nanotube materials don't have anything like their theoretical microscopic properties. Expense and low production are secondary problems compared to the basic issue of, "We don't have a material strong enough to make a space elevator." The space elevator would only partly answer the asteroid mining problem. It'd be great to have a metal-rich asteroid as the counterweight for a space elevator (the asteroid would be very useful for space-based industry), but the construction and operating costs of elevators may be very high compared to the cost of common industrial metals, which limits the ability to mine the asteroid and deliver the goods to Earth. For example, CNN opines that the elevator could reduce launch costs by 98%. Great. Let's pick a cheap launch firm, like the Russians, and generously say the Rooskies can launch for $1000/pound (vs. $10K/pound in the US). 2% of $1000 is $20 a pound. Now, $20/pound is frickin' awesome for space travel (don't get me wrong) but raw iron goes for only $0.20-$0.30 a pound, I think. Common steels aren't much more expensive. Aluminum alloys tend to be about 3-4x as expensive as steel per pound, but that's still a fraction of $20/pound. Who wants to buy "space steel" that costs $20 a pound when you can get it from Earth for a fraction of the cost? There are rarer materials that might come from an asteroid - like platinum group metals - at a profit, but it won't be the basic industrial metals that make up most of the $20 trillion claim. I admit, I love to use space elevators and asteroid mining in near- to mid-future settings (2050 to 2200AD), but don't expect to see them soon. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Mar 3 2006, 01:53 PM
Post
#7
|
|
|
Neophyte Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,073 Joined: 23-August 04 Member No.: 6,587 |
Although I agree space mettles won’t be worth bringing down to earth bringing something down the space elevator will be cheaper than taking it up. (conceivably they could use a dropped counterweight to put something into orbit, meaning they would wind up putting anything of high mass in the descending load and paying people to bring it to them)
If they don’t implement a system like that however your right, industrial mettles are way to cheep to transport from orbit, there is the cost of extraction in a hostile environment and moving to earth orbit also to be considered. What asteroid mining would be useful for is construction materials in space. if your building space stations for industrial applications you need a /lot/of mettle, if you can get an asteroid in earth orbit it could easily be cheaper to mine that than to bring industrial mettles up from earth. Edward |
|
|
|
|
Mar 3 2006, 02:45 PM
Post
#8
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,095 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Ontari-airee-o Member No.: 1,115 |
Are you aware of how much energy it takes to refine metals? It is not like they are going to build some power plants on the thing, and have a mini city that mines then refines the product. Hauling up heavy water, reactor cores, and the like. I am sure that not all the construction materials are on the asteroid, (especially water for cement) You have to get things started up there.
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 3 2006, 09:25 PM
Post
#9
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,028 Joined: 9-November 02 From: The Republic of Vermont Member No.: 3,581 |
Two words: Solar Furnace.
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 3 2006, 10:39 PM
Post
#10
|
|
|
Horror Group: Members Posts: 5,322 Joined: 15-June 05 From: BumFuck, New Jersey Member No.: 7,445 |
Or you could, you know, just realize that you have the ultimate space-station already in orbit - IE, the big honking rock itself, and then just carve out the bits that you want to be tunnels or living spaces or whatever.
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 4 2006, 05:03 PM
Post
#11
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,088 Joined: 8-October 04 From: Dallas, TX Member No.: 6,734 |
Um...how big is it? Would it create a new tidal effect due to gravitational pull? |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Mar 4 2006, 05:04 PM
Post
#12
|
|
|
Horror Group: Members Posts: 5,322 Joined: 15-June 05 From: BumFuck, New Jersey Member No.: 7,445 |
Not really THAT big honkingly big, Doc. :P
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 9 2006, 07:11 PM
Post
#13
|
|
|
Shooting Target Group: Validating Posts: 1,618 Joined: 29-January 03 From: Montevideo, Uruguay. Member No.: 3,992 |
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 10 2006, 01:15 PM
Post
#14
|
|||||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,428 Joined: 9-June 02 Member No.: 2,860 |
No. A monstrous asteroid with enough metals to support mankind's industrial needs for centuries is only about 5km across. It won't exert enough tidal forces to be noticeable with anything other than sensitive scientific instruments. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Mar 10 2006, 01:45 PM
Post
#15
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 751 Joined: 7-June 02 From: Hamilton.LTG.on.ca Member No.: 2,853 |
But by removing such large chunks of rock, would that not disrupt the cosmic balance of gravitational harmony out in space? I don't know much about Physics and all but i was just curious, would this eventually be some form of Gravity pollution or somehting along those lines? |
|
|
|
|
Mar 10 2006, 02:27 PM
Post
#16
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,428 Joined: 9-June 02 Member No.: 2,860 |
The short answer is: no. The medium answer is: no such thing. The long answer is: a little rock like an asteroid doesn't register among the gravitational movers and shakers in the Solar system. The objects that matter are the Sun and Jupiter. As far as Earth is concerned, the moon is also important. The solar system is a messy, chaotic place. Some objects, like the planets, have found stable havens that are resistant to minor changes, but even safe havens aren't perfect. Jupiter is a beast that can disturb planetary tilts - without the moon stabilizing Earth's tilt, Earth would be flipping quite a few degrees within just a few million years, like Mars. Smaller objects like the many wandering asteroids and comets get scattered in encounters with planets and quite often end up nose diving into the sun. Moving a huge asteroid like Ceres (~1000km diameter) might cause local issues (i.e., for the asteroid belt), but something like a mountain-sized rock is a non-issue to planets. Such debris has been passing Earth - and all the planets - for billions of years with no ill effects. Now, when debris HITS a planet, there's plenty of ill effects, but that's not due to "gravity pollution." |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Mar 10 2006, 05:12 PM
Post
#17
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 637 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,528 |
Yes! And it will definitly hurt the eco-system on the moon! Sorry, that "cosmic balance" stuff sounds like one of the Eco-Crappers from "Fallen Angels" |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Mar 10 2006, 09:57 PM
Post
#18
|
|
|
Beetle Eater Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 4,797 Joined: 3-June 02 From: Oblivion City Member No.: 2,826 |
Ah, but it could have a huge impact on the Astral Plane, perhaps causing mana spikes and ill effects for a time (like ripples across a pond), that would eventually settle into a rhythm with the other astrological entities of the metaphysical plane. "Ah, my dear, your spell will be must powerful on the 31st when Jupiter in the Third House and the Moon conjoins with Phoebes just before 21:30 GMT. That will be fifty nuyen. Oh, and don't try summoning a Water Elemental then, or you'll regret it. Also, beware of men in dark glasses - No, that's not in the charts; it's more of a general warning."
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 11 2006, 12:59 AM
Post
#19
|
|||
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,556 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Seattle Member No.: 98 |
I was under the impression the $20/pound was for starlift, not for bringing stuff back down? With creative use of generators, I could see dropping things from orbit actually being used to create power, in addition to giving you metal to sell on the ground. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Mar 11 2006, 01:49 AM
Post
#20
|
|||
|
Free Spirit Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 3,944 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Bloomington, IN UCAS Member No.: 1,920 |
Ok, saw why mining helium3 on moon could make money (if tech pans out), and mining mineral rich asteroids sounds like money to be made (I don't know about hundreds of years worth of materials from a chunk 5 km across though). What is the draw for going to Mars? Vacation and resort? And in answer to the gravitational harmony is things are already changing and have been for a long time. The entire universe is expanding Also, has anyone heard about a theory the earth produces oil and gas all on its own, that the fossil fuel theory could not possibly explain the vast amounts of oil and gas that exists and has already been consumed? I heard it mentioned on Coast to Coast radio (yeah the program with aliens, spirits, remote viewing, basically crazy talk.) I just wondered if this theory had any basis, supposedly it has not been disproved, and has some observed phenomena to support it.
The rate I heard for launching was $10,000 a pound, so $20 a pound back down makes sense. (Unless it is the counterweight for the elevator.) I am also wondering how these satellite solar collectors are supposed to work. Do they create actual electricity in orbit and beam it down with microwave (again the tech isn't developed), or are they just collecting energy (heat and radiation or ?) and somehow beaming the energy down. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Mar 11 2006, 01:56 AM
Post
#21
|
|||
|
Beetle Eater Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 4,797 Joined: 3-June 02 From: Oblivion City Member No.: 2,826 |
If they could prove that the Earth was producing "organic" materials such as oil, it would be a huge deal and covered far and wide for more than just the oil aspect. As of now, it's all hypothetical, but there are several theories about fossil fuel production. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Mar 11 2006, 02:25 AM
Post
#22
|
|
|
Free Spirit Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 3,944 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Bloomington, IN UCAS Member No.: 1,920 |
From what I understood, the molten part was churning and the fuels part was getting worked out and rising to the crust. I am guessing you are saying 'organic' because it is carbon based?
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 11 2006, 02:52 AM
Post
#23
|
|||
|
Beetle Eater Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 4,797 Joined: 3-June 02 From: Oblivion City Member No.: 2,826 |
Hydrocarbon. I'd be interested in hearing how large quantities of hydrogen were making it through the mantle to be bonded with carbon. What I can find with a quick search is "...that the process of hydrocarbon formation has taken place in the crust after a deep infiltration of meteoric waters...". The people supporting non-biological processes for production seem to be all oil companies, and they also seem to discount the total lack of quantity they find as relevant. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Mar 11 2006, 04:58 AM
Post
#24
|
|||
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,635 Joined: 27-November 05 Member No.: 8,006 |
Really? I'm curious what you base the link to oil companies on. There was a guy that came through Calgary last year. He had been invited to give a talk about non-biological sourced hydrocarbon in front of a number of oil company people, primarily geologists and related professionals. This fellow was noteworthy in that he had vocally predicted that the moon's surface was largely covered by a layer of dust when such predictions were not vogue. Damned if I can remember his name, I'd have to check with a geoligist friend of mine. Anyway this guy was heckled. I mean straight out heckled to the point that the chairman of the society that invited him got up and asked people not to be so rude to the guest, even if they didn't agree with him. The people talking about it might be somehow related to the geology field which is a critical field for oil and gas exploration and recovery. So that seems a pretty natural association. Obviously people that are making a living looking for oil and gas are going to be front and center among those interesting in where the hell it comes from. But the theories about non-biological source oil, gas, and coal have very little support among the oil and gas industry. Past hucksters that used and abused the theory to fleece people haven't helped much. As for the validity of the theory and proof, it is my understanding that there has been some physical chemistry evidence to suggest that some hydrocarbons found to have some sort of non-biological source, or at least a source that doesn't match up with current biological source theories. It was also shown last year that it is theoretically possible for methane to be created from a non-biological source, at least in a guesstimation of some mantle conditions. A very oddball theory in some ways, and no way it accounts for the majority of our current hydrocarbon reserves. But exactly how much is out there, if any, and even where to look for it if it was there is a real head scratcher. They have a tough enouch time finding the stuff on a biological source basis where they have specific sedimentary layers they are looking in. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Mar 11 2006, 05:07 AM
Post
#25
|
|
|
Midnight Toker Group: Members Posts: 7,686 Joined: 4-July 04 From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop Member No.: 6,456 |
There used to be a theory in organic chemestry about a mysterious and vaugely defined "life force" or "life energy" which was possessed by living beings and was somehow integral to the process of synthesizing organic compounds. Then someone made urine in a lab.
There is nothing chemically invalid about non-biological source of hydrocarbons. |
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 22nd November 2024 - 04:45 AM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.