Slashdot Mirror


The Financial Future of Space Travel

gurps_npc writes " This CNNMoney story discusses the financial future of space travel. In particular it gives some nice names and numbers, such as Bezos, Musk and 3554 Amun. 3554 Amun is an small metalic asteroid that crosses Earth's pass (not on collission course) and contains over 20 trillion US dollars worth of precious metal. It is a great fact to know when trying to explain to flat-earth types that don't understand why we waste money on space travel."

10 of 414 comments (clear)

  1. Space will paid for through public/private by RedHatLinux · · Score: 2, Interesting

    scheme. The government will front the money, and we'll have privatization of risk, but when the money starts to get made, we'll hear about how we need to keep government out. Kind of like today, where companies rail against government interference on the Internet and the utilities, which wouldn't exist without government action.

    Seriously, without government action, the south would have no electric power, the Internet would not be here, and people in the boondocks would never have mail service, because the Free Market wouldnt support it.

    On that note, remember, Free Market economics is like Marxist economics, a few designed system with strengths and weaknesses, not some divine proscription.

  2. Re:eek by NalosLayor · · Score: 3, Interesting

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_standard note the last line of the third paragraph: "The gold standard is no longer used in any nation, having been replaced completely by fiat currency." "Sweden abandoned the gold standard in 1929, the US in 1933, and other nations were, to one degree or another, forced off the gold standard." So, in summary: "1933 called, and they want to redeem their dollars."

  3. Expense and difficulties ... by b0r1s · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Expense and difficult problems pave the way for high tech research and funding.

    Just like war: the people who benefit most are in the high tech fields.

    --
    Mooniacs for iOS and Android
  4. Re:Get rid of the bean counters by CaptainCarrot · · Score: 5, Interesting
    We should continue exploration not only for the monetary return on investment (ROI), but rather BECAUSE IT'S THERE!

    That's the idealistic response, but this is the kind of thing that will get NASA out of the space business and get people into it who know how to turn a profit on it. In the long run, this is what can make space travel widely accessible, not a government agency.

    --
    And the brethren went away edified.
  5. Re:And it better not hit the earth by 1u3hr · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Oh it's worse than that. Even if it does not crash it could still wreak havoc on tidal forces and ocean currents and turn the ecosystem upside down.

    Bullshit. You'd need a micrometer to measure its tidal effect.

    Moon: mass = 7x10e22 kg, distance= 360,000 km
    Asteroid: mass about 2x10e13 kg, distance (say) 100 km

    ratio of gravitational forces:m1/m2* (r1/r2)e2 = roughly 1/270.

    .. what about the impact of launching rockets with ore from this asteroid continuously? is that not "thrust"? that would change its orbit.

    No. Rockets "push against" their exhaust, not what they launch from. However, if they used a mass-driver to accelerate the payloads, the asteroid would be pushed back. But it's a simple calculation.

  6. All that is needed is a clear goal by HuguesT · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I read a lot of negative comments on NASA on this board. It's now fashionable to complain that this agency has become a huge inefficient cesspit of wasted opportunities and money. Since the last shuttle disaster NASA is not looking very good for sure.

    People assume that things will fare better if profit-driven private enterprise runs the space exploring show.

    To a great degree I think it's not as simple as it looks. First the obvious cheap routes to profit from space are already taken : putting satellites in LEO and geosynchronous orbit. There is already a lot of competition on that market between the US, Europe, Japan, India and China. Unless someone comes up with a space elevator that works or similar disruptive technology, this is not likely to change much.

    Essentially private space exploring enterprises is now at the level NASA was at in 1950 or so. It took a huge financial effort and a large dedicated team of incredible people to go to the Moon in 1970 or so (and bring back small samples of rock). While not all of this is lost, and I believe it is possible to repeat the feat, I can't see much profit in that particular endeavour. Colour me doubtful with respect with space tourism. It will be a while before this is safe enough for companies to ship people for small leaps above the atmosphere without getting sued out of existence at the first accident.

    Getting to the Moon and the asteroids and mining them has been a mainstay of science fiction since it has existed. Everyone knows many asteroids are metal-rich and could turn a nice buck if they could be exploited. Everyone knows the Moon is littered with He3, and theoretically achieving sustained nuclear fusion might be easiser there. However various governments have known this as well, for decades. In contrast to starry eyed reporters and somewhat naive slashdot users, they have run the numbers and found that with current technology their exploitation is simply not economically feasible. Again we need disruptive technology and it's not there yet.

    While I'm not a particular big fan of governements either, and not particularly the US's, I'd like to remind everyone here that so far, in spite of their failings, it is them who have driven investments, research, exploration and exploitation. They are so far ahead of any and all private space exploration outfits that it's not funny.

    Even with the help of billions and indeed, trillions of dollars of private funds it will take a very long time for private enterprise to catch up, let alone leap ahead. I don't doubt that if Bill Gates and Warren Buffet combined their wealth they'd be able to build a Saturn V equivalent in a small number of years, but I can't see anyone succeeding in convincing them it would be a good and sound business proposition.

    It may happen, but I wouldn't hold my breath. While private enterprise is busy gathering investors with nice sounding business plans and pooh poohing all that we learned in the last 50 years or so of actual space exploration because, you know, gov't did it and that's not relevant, NASA and the others are still exploring the solar system, last I checked. Apparently there's a plan to go to Mars, or so I heard.

    Really all that NASA and others require is a sound plan, a clear worthy goal that has some chance of succeeding. What many people seem to be missing here is that in spite of searching and thinking hard that plan was never found. The rest followed.

    1. Re:All that is needed is a clear goal by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2, Interesting
      People assume that things will fare better if profit-driven private enterprise runs the space exploring show.

      I don't think anybody believes it will be safer, just easier to justify in the long run.

      While not all of this is lost, and I believe it is possible to repeat the feat, I can't see much profit in that particular endeavour. Colour me doubtful with respect with space tourism. It will be a while before this is safe enough for companies to ship people for small leaps above the atmosphere without getting sued out of existence at the first accident.

      Space adventures are said to be building a base in the UAE. Liability may be less of an issue. Some people will pay big money to take a risk, but the supply of these people may run out quickly. OTH it may last long enough to bootstrap services at a lower price, and perhaps make them sustainable in the long run.

      I know that there are a lot of maybees in that paragraph. But a shot at a private space program is better than relying on NASA. I don't think NASA has any reason to be in space, other than retaining a long term capability for the USA to do manned space flight if it becomes an important requirement.

      Really all that NASA and others require is a sound plan, a clear worthy goal that has some chance of succeeding. What many people seem to be missing here is that in spite of searching and thinking hard that plan was never found. The rest followed.

      Apollo was a cold war thing. Shuttle was apollo era technology. The cold war has finished. The ISS is an extension of '50s SF ideas, combined with the idea of doing skylab2. There is no reason to be in space at the moment, and NASA's approach to Shuttle and ISS shows it.

      Realistically why would the USA want to go to the moon or back to mars? I can't imagine my Government wanting to do those things, as much as I would want them to try.

  7. Re:And it better not hit the earth by oojah · · Score: 2, Interesting

    From: http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/impacteffects/

    Your Inputs:

    Distance from Impact: 161.00 km = 99.98 miles
    Projectile Diameter: 2000.00 m = 6560.00 ft = 1.24 miles
    Projectile Density: 8000 kg/m3
    Impact Velocity: 17.00 km/s = 10.56 miles/s
    Impact Angle: 45 degrees
    Target Density: 2750 kg/m3
    Target Type: Crystalline Rock

    Energy:

    Energy before atmospheric entry: 4.84 x 1021 Joules = 1.16 x 106 MegaTons TNT
    The average interval between impacts of this size somewhere on Earth during the last 4 billion years is 5.1 x 106years

    Major Global Changes:

    The Earth is not strongly disturbed by the impact and loses negligible mass. The impact does not make a noticeable change in the Earth's rotation period or the tilt of its axis.

    The impact does not shift the Earth's orbit noticeably.

    Crater Dimensions:

    Transient Crater Diameter: 24.4 km = 15.1 miles
    Transient Crater Depth: 8.63 km = 5.36 miles

    Final Crater Diameter: 37.2 km = 23.1 miles
    Final Crater Depth: 0.879 km = 0.546 miles

    The crater formed is a complex crater.
    The volume of the target melted or vaporized is 30.4 km3 = 7.3 miles3
    Roughly half the melt remains in the crater , where its average thickness is 65.1 meters = 213 feet

    Thermal Radiation:

    Time for maximum radiation: 1.99 seconds after impact
    Visible fireball radius: 31.8 km = 19.7 miles
    The fireball appears 44.9 times larger than the sun
    Thermal Exposure: 8.22 x 107 Joules/m2
    Duration of Irradiation: 439 seconds
    Radiant flux (relative to the sun): 187

    Effects of Thermal Radiation:

    Clothing ignites
    Much of the body suffers third degree burns
    Newspaper ignites
    Plywood flames
    Deciduous trees ignite
    Grass ignites

    Seismic Effects:

    The major seismic shaking will arrive at approximately 32.2 seconds.
    Richter Scale Magnitude: 8.7
    Mercalli Scale Intensity at a distance of 161 km:
    VII. Damage negligible in buildings of good design and construction; slight to moderate in well-built ordinary structures; considerable damage in poorly built or badly designed structures; some chimneys broken.
    VIII. Damage slight in specially designed structures; considerable damage in ordinary substantial buildings with partial collapse. Damage great in poorly built structures. Fall of chimneys, factory stacks, columns, monuments, walls. Heavy furniture overturned.

    Ejecta:

    The ejecta will arrive approximately 184 seconds after the impact.
    Average Ejecta Thickness: 75.8 cm = 29.8 inches
    Mean Fragment Diameter: 6.91 cm = 2.72 inches

    Air Blast:

    The air blast will arrive at approximately 488 seconds.
    Peak Overpressure: 278000 Pa = 2.78 bars = 39.5 psi
    Max wind velocity: 357 m/s = 798 mph
    Sound Intensity: 109 dB (May cause ear pain)

    Damage Description:

    Multistory wall-bearing buildings will collapse.
    Wood frame buildings will almost completely collapse.
    Multistory steel-framed office-type buildings will suffer extreme frame distortion, incipient collapse.
    Highway truss bridges will collapse.
    Glass windows will shatter.
    Up to 90 percent of trees blown down; remainder stripped of branches and leaves.

    --
    Do you have any better hostages?
  8. Re:And it better not hit the earth by Tango42 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You throw stuff out the back of your rocket while you're near ground, that stuff is going to hit the ground and transfer its momentum. Until you're far enough away for the exhaust to disperse before reaching the ground you effectively push against the ground - you'd get the same thrust without the ground there, certainly, but the ground still recoils. It's a pretty small consideration, though - you can launch from alternate sides of the asteroid if you have to.

  9. Re:And it better not hit the earth by ceoyoyo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Note that you don't so much land on a 2km asteroid as you dock with it. So chances are very little of your exhaust would actually be directed at any particular side of the asteroid.