Slashdot Mirror


NASA Is Planning Mission To An Asteroid Worth $10 Quintillion (usatoday.com)

New submitter kugo2006 writes: NASA announced a plan to research 16 Psyche, an asteroid potentially as large as Mars and primarily composed of Iron and Nickel. The rock is unique in that it has an exposed core, likely a result of a series of collisions, according to Lindy Elkins-Tanton, Psyche's principal investigator. The mission's spacecraft would launch in 2023 and arrive in 2030. According to Global News, Elkins-Tanton calculates that the iron in 16 Psyche would be worth $10,000 quadrillion ($10 quintillion).

308 comments

  1. What complete nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There isn't that much money in the entire world economy. So who can buy this stuff?

    1. Re:What complete nonsense by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The $10 Quadrillion figure is total baloney. You can't just take the current value and extrapolate, because the price would fall as the supply rises. A one carat diamond may be worth $10,000, but if there were suddenly a trillion of them, they would be worth next to nothing, and people would use them as gravel in their driveways.

    2. Re:What complete nonsense by Calydor · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Ten thousand quadrillion. By comparison, the total value of EVERYTHING WE EVER DID as a race amounts to about two quadrillion as per:

      https://xkcd.com/980/huge/#x=-... (link looks odd because it's one of his large-scale images, zoomed in on the appropriate area)

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    3. Re:What complete nonsense by mvendra · · Score: 5, Informative

      Pretty much what happened in Spain during the 16th century. They brought so much gold/silver back to Europe, it actually caused massive inflation.

    4. Re:What complete nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      " one carat diamond may be worth $10,000, but if there were suddenly a trillion of them"

      Between the hoards of diamonds that DeBeers keeps locked up, and the ability to make them in a lab, there are a ~trillion of them. Diamonds have no real value, go sell one "used" and you'll find out much they're worth.

    5. Re:What complete nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the same logic people use with 'lets just give everyone a million dollars' and it fails for the same reason.

    6. Re:What complete nonsense by alzoron · · Score: 1

      You're only thinking about trying to get the iron back to Earth to use here. Imagine a market where nations and/or corporations are building things in space. All of a sudden whoever has control of raw materials that are already in space and don't have to be shot of Earth's gravity well are very rich.

    7. Re:What complete nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet the people who understand that concept don't understand what giving unlimited revenue streams to colleges and health insurance companies will do.

      Go figure.

      Y'all need to watch Duck Tales, woo-ooo.

    8. Re:What complete nonsense by gravewax · · Score: 1

      Iron and nickel are abundant in the universe, if you are building in space you aren't going to be locked to such resource constraints (at least not for long).

    9. Re: What complete nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But raising minimum wage to $50/hr wouldn't have that effect.

    10. Re:What complete nonsense by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Not quite "baloney" if you also look at it the other way of having a resource that could be dragged into orbit if you want to build stuff in space instead of having to drag it all the way up from Earth at the cost of vast amounts of fuel. If it could be used that way it's the equivalent of spending shitloads in cash.
      Otherwise, yes, file it with a snake with poison strong enough to kill five elephants in a single bite under silly metrics since it's not getting to the ground to be sold.
      However journalists like that sort of extrapolation.
      At least this time it wasn't in Volkswagens or Libraries of Congress.

    11. Re:What complete nonsense by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 2

      I wonder how you're supposed to smelt it in space. Perhaps space air is flammable?

      https://vk.com/video51098255_1...

    12. Re: What complete nonsense by mdenham · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There is a point where raising the minimum wage continues to be beneficial; we have not reached that point, but I highly doubt it's more than about $15-20/hr at this time.

      The reason it continues to be beneficial is that price increases are still slower than wage increases up to a certain point. If we want a viable economy, money needs to change hands - and people at the bottom end of the wage scale are going to spend most of their money pretty much no matter what, which means that money changes hands more often.

      Yes, the "rich" (more appropriately, the entrepreneurial class, regardless of the amount of money they have) need an incentive to actually create jobs... but a lot of people at the top end aren't interested in that, they just want to keep their money stagnant because it's safer to do that and keep people from breaking into whatever their pet industry is (which might cause - horrors! - competition) than to, you know, actually put it to active use.

      In short: there's a fucking middle ground between "no raises in the minimum wage" and "minimum wage needs to be enough that someone working 20hrs/week can support a whole family" and that's where we really should be aiming for.

    13. Re: What complete nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps heat from the sun can be concentrated? Without a pesky atmosphere around to absorb it or convect it away?

    14. Re:What complete nonsense by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I heard the accompanying video's talking head saying "...an asteroid with so much money, it could easily solve the worlds..." and then I shut it off.

      I'd much rather know what the volume of iron is, because that's actually interesting and practical. Let's do the math. Feel free to double-check me as well, as I'm just going to rush through this.

      Iron costs about 80 dollars per metric tonne, according to Google. So, $10,000,000,000,000,000,000 converts to 125,000,000,000,000,000 tonnes of iron. Cast iron weighs 7.3 tonnes per cubic meter, so that's ~17,000,000,000,000,000 cubic meters of iron. That number is a bit high to visualize, so let's turn that into cubic kilometers by removing nine zeros. We're looking at 17 million cubic kilometers of iron.

      Holy crap. How many Death Stars could we make out of that? According to someone on the internet, a Death Star requires 1,080,000,000,000,000 tonnes of steel. Divide our original tonnage by that and... Hell yeah, we could build a fleet of 115 Death Stars with that asteroid.

      See? Now that's way more interesting and easier to visualize at the same time, right?

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    15. Re:What complete nonsense by perpenso · · Score: 1

      A one carat diamond may be worth $10,000, but if there were suddenly a trillion of them ...

      FWIW, there are diamonds in asteroids too.

    16. Re:What complete nonsense by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      You smelt using mirrors and the sun.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    17. Re:What complete nonsense by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      So, question.......would you really build a death star out of steel?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    18. Re:What complete nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It worths much more if it stays in space, thus avoiding expensive recovery (and possible relaunch) costs. It should be considered a pre-launched resource for future space related buildings.

    19. Re:What complete nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd much rather know what the volume of iron is,

      24 decibels.

    20. Re:What complete nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I heard the accompanying video's talking head saying "...an asteroid with so much money, it could easily solve the worlds..." and then I shut it off.

      I'd much rather know what the volume of iron is, because that's actually interesting and practical. Let's do the math. Feel free to double-check me as well, as I'm just going to rush through this.

      Iron costs about 80 dollars per metric tonne, according to Google. So, $10,000,000,000,000,000,000 converts to 125,000,000,000,000,000 tonnes of iron. Cast iron weighs 7.3 tonnes per cubic meter, so that's ~17,000,000,000,000,000 cubic meters of iron. That number is a bit high to visualize, so let's turn that into cubic kilometers by removing nine zeros. We're looking at 17 million cubic kilometers of iron.

      Holy crap. How many Death Stars could we make out of that? According to someone on the internet, a Death Star requires 1,080,000,000,000,000 tonnes of steel. Divide our original tonnage by that and... Hell yeah, we could build a fleet of 115 Death Stars with that asteroid.

      See? Now that's way more interesting and easier to visualize at the same time, right?

      Nice visualization! This sounds awesome

    21. Re:What complete nonsense by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      A one carat diamond may be worth $10,000, but if there were suddenly a trillion of them, they would be worth next to nothing, and people would use them as gravel in their driveways.

      It's funny you should mention that. Suppose that if there was a trillion of them, and suppose they were controlled by one monopoly who could regulate the supply say by hording cut diamonds and trickling them out into the economy. You'd actually be in a very similar position to where we are today.

      Diamonds are not rare, we can manufacture them quite easily without imperfection. A 1ct diamond can be made for under $2500 The value comes from the fact that people want the single biggest one, all natural dug out of the ground, and perfect in every way. Where do you find diamonds like that? Horded in De Beers safes, and when they announced a transition to end that 80 year long practice of price manipulation it was accompanied by a marketing campaign that just made your recognise that crappy little 1ct diamond for the crappy little 1ct diamond it is, not worthy of your fiance's love.

      Diamond as a material is quite abundant and costs $40/ct. I have a toolbox full of products that contain collectively over 1ct of diamond, but industrial uses aren't manipulated by marketing or supply side market distortion.

      Now if I had an asteroid in my back yard worth $10 quadrillion, do you think I'll just sell it on the open market at once?

    22. Re:What complete nonsense by fadethepolice · · Score: 2

      I have never met anybody that thinks we should give unlimited amounts of money to colleges and health insurance companies. Restoring the ability of people to get a job they can support themselves with via government provided education as it was during the entirety of the 20th century seemed to be very successful. Most people on the left think we should eliminate health insurance companies entirely.

    23. Re: What complete nonsense by fadethepolice · · Score: 1

      A little under $22 dollars an hour is what the minimum wage was in 1968 when adjusted for inflation and increases in productivity http://cepr.net/documents/publ... So to increase beyond what was in the 1960s we would have to go up higher than that.

    24. Re: What complete nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, let's build it already and exterminate all parasites indo-chimps.

    25. Re: What complete nonsense by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You can't realistically adjust minimum wage for productivity. Productivity measures the output of a system vs. its operational cost. The productivity of a person isn't simply the productivity of that system divided by the nr. of employees in it. Else they'd have to pay the one janitor left in Amazon's fully automatic warehouse a couple of million a year, probably.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    26. Re: What complete nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Er. unless of course someone like, say De-beers sat on the supply and kept the price artificially high by stockpileing huge amounts of stock !!

    27. Re:What complete nonsense by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      It's actually not a bad idea if you want a little inflation, and there are cases where you'd want it. This is Friedman's "helicopter money", where a central bank increases the money supply by giving every person a bit of cash, instead of the usual quantitive easing where they buy government securities. The idea behind this method is that it turns out that money generated through QE doesn't make its way into the real economy all that quickly, where it is expected that a one-off payment to citizens will (even if they decide to save or invest most of it). It was actually briefly considered in Europe, but naturally the banks oppose it since it means the helicopter will not be flying over their lawn anymore,and thus Draghi (president of the ECB and former Goldman Sachs exec) is never going to allow it.

      Of course it wouldn't be a million but perhaps $1000 or a $300 Tricky Dick Fun Bill.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    28. Re:What complete nonsense by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      Suppose you sold your $10 quadrillion asteroid to De Beers, who would then slowly trickle it to the market. How much do you think they'll pay you for it ? That's how much it's worth.

    29. Re:What complete nonsense by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      You smelt using mirrors and the sun.

      The asteroid belt is 3 AU from the sun, so the sunlight would be 1/9th as bright as the light that reaches earth. You would need a big mirror, but in the vacuum of space, the only heat loss would be radiant.

    30. Re:What complete nonsense by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      So, question.......would you really build a death star out of steel?

      Yes. Steel is strong, and easy to work with. The only drawback over something like titanium or carbon fiber is that it is HEAVY, but that isn't a big problem in space. The big advantage of steel is that it is cheap and plentiful, and when you need a quadrillion tonnes for just one Death Star, those costs add up.

      Of course, heaviness means inertia, but travelling through hyperspace ain't like dusting crops, and inertia doesn't seem to be an impediment in any of the movies.

    31. Re:What complete nonsense by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      FWIW, there are diamonds in asteroids too.

      Cool. Instead of buying my GF an engagement ring, I can just buy her the naming rights to a small carbonaceous asteroid.

    32. Re:What complete nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      just one Death Star

      Why make only one when you can have two for twice the price ?

    33. Re:What complete nonsense by hholzgra · · Score: 1

      So that would be an iron cube with a side length of about 257km hiding in a roundish object with a diameter of about 200km ... that would make it a very interesting thing to explore indeed ...

    34. Re:What complete nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The value of this thing is mostly in that it isn't at the bottom of our gravity well.

      Move it or mine it (a tall order) and use the stuff out there and it could be worth 5 times the total value of the works of the entire human race.

      Especially if it is the first major step in getting off the planet and into real long term galactic survival.

    35. Re:What complete nonsense by religionofpeas · · Score: 0

      Dragging an asteroid into orbit isn't cheap either, and neither is converting the raw ore into final products.

    36. Re:What complete nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dragging an asteroid into orbit isn't cheap...

      No, but it is easy and completely safe!

    37. Re:What complete nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hell yeah, we could build a fleet of 115 Death Stars with that asteroid.

      please convert to the slashdot customary unit of measurement, the Library of Congress

    38. Re:What complete nonsense by peragrin · · Score: 1, Informative

      right now health insurance companies cost you about 30 cents for every dollar of your health care.(obamacare limits it to 20 cents) Adminstration of health care costs you 90 cents for your dollar.

      how much more health care could be provided if adminstration costs could be cut back?

      The USA has a very top heavy infrastructure and not enough grunts in the fields. everything is that way. businesses government etc.

      the finance guys and upper management wont' mention it since it is their salaries at stake, but they trimed the fat from the supply chain, and lower levels. now the fat is all concentrated in the upper management fields. This country won't grow until that takes a couple of major cuts. And that won't happen for a few more years.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    39. Re:What complete nonsense by dbIII · · Score: 1
      Indeed but we are talking about a few orders of magnitude in fuel difference so long as you are prepared to wait a long time for the asteroid to get to where you want it.
      Of course it makes a LOT more sense to start with a small one that is closer or on it's way past in the first place, but we are talking seriously way out SF stuff here if we are talking about needing planetoids worth of minerals. By the time we need that much stuff we'll probably be ready to set up processing onsite in the asteroid belt instead of moving something so huge.

      neither is converting the raw ore into final products

      On Earth our biggest problem is the ores are normally metal oxides that need to be reduced, and that typically requires both a lot of heat and a serious reducing agent. Some of these asteroids have stuff in a metallic state instead of oxidised so there is a lot less to do. You've heard of "sky-iron" swords and daggers? It's not just myth, Tutenkamen had one, a nickel rich iron dagger forged directly from a chunk of meterorite (just heated to red hot and hammered into shape) - I think it's in the British Museum.

    40. Re:What complete nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Australia did this in 2009.

      http://www.examiner.com.au/story/497430/900-tax-cash-bonus-payments-from-next-week/

      It worked well, as can be seen by this article.

      http://www.businessinsider.com.au/chart-australia-has-now-gone-24-5-years-without-a-recession-heres-what-that-looks-like-2016-3

    41. Re: What complete nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      How much more health care could be provided if admin costs were drastically cut? Maybe a week before malpractice suits, refused reimbursements, and regulatory stop-work orders drove the providers out of business.

    42. Re:What complete nonsense by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      By the time we need that much stuff we'll probably be ready to set up processing onsite in the asteroid belt instead of moving something so huge

      What is this "need" that you speak of ? There's nothing in space that would be worth the insane expense of setting up an industry in the asteroid belt.

    43. Re:What complete nonsense by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      The USA has a very top heavy infrastructure and not enough grunts in the fields. everything is that way. businesses government etc.

      Certainly higher education is like that.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    44. Re:What complete nonsense by sudon't · · Score: 1

      A one carat diamond may be worth $10,000, but if there were suddenly a trillion of them, they would be worth next to nothing, and people would use them as gravel in their driveways.

      Unless some company had a total monopoly on diamonds and used it to keep diamond prices artificially high. #debeers

      --
      -- sudon't

      Air-ride Equipped

    45. Re:What complete nonsense by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2

      "I have never met anybody that thinks we should give unlimited amounts of money to colleges and health insurance companies."

      Then you must not work for the government.

    46. Re:What complete nonsense by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2

      "The asteroid belt is 3 AU from the sun, so the sunlight would be 1/9th as bright as the light that reaches earth. You would need a big mirror, but in the vacuum of space, the only heat loss would be radiant."

      If you can mine from asteroids, you can build a big anything you want in space.

    47. Re:What complete nonsense by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      You can keep prices high only when you don't sell much. But if you don't sell much, you will never recover the capital expense of retrieving the asteroid.

    48. Re:What complete nonsense by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      "Dragging an asteroid into orbit isn't cheap..."

      Which is why you want to do the refining and as much of the manufacturing as possible in place. Then you change the orbit of your undersea tunnel tubes or solar array scaffolding as needed.

    49. Re: What complete nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course! You're just twice as far away again from the Sun as Mars! Just make the mirror 16 times bigger!

      Everything is so simple in sci-fi engineering land!

    50. Re:What complete nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, no you can't, you foolish delusional old man. My god, the damage the 1960s space fantasies have done to your mind is irreparable.

    51. Re:What complete nonsense by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      Dragging an industry to an asteroid isn't any cheaper, I'm afraid. Much cheaper to find the materials here on Earth and do the processing here.

    52. Re:What complete nonsense by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      "Now if I had an asteroid in my back yard worth $10 quadrillion, do you think I'll just sell it on the open market at once?"

      Yes you would, because as soon as the technology exists to exploit asteroidal materials, any rise in market price of your product will cause other asteroids to be mined. Even if Phyche is the exact best place to mine because of its status as a planetary core, there are plenty of other bodies in the same region of space that are almost as good.

    53. Re:What complete nonsense by BlueMonk · · Score: 1

      It's not *complete* nonsense. The only phrase they neglected to include was, "at the current market price." I don't think this measurement is as useful in an economic context as in an order of magnitude context. If you told people that there was an asteroid out there with about a billion megatons of iron and nickel (if I did my math right), they might not be able to put it in context as well as if you told them how much that is worth at the current market rate -- more than all the economies on the planet. It is a little sensational and misleading because obviously you can't extract anywhere near that much value from it, but it does help understand the order of magnitude a little. Also, maybe the space program deserves a little benefit of the doubt these days having been cut so much due to irrational psychological issues screwing their budget over. Maybe people who can't put money in a proper context deserve to be misled a little in the other direction with a story that shows what kind of value the space program can offer if you give it a chance.

    54. Re:What complete nonsense by khallow · · Score: 1

      What Australia did was have a higher reserve for its banks. That prevented the need for expensive bailouts of "too big to fail" banks.

      And avoiding recessions is not necessarily a good thing.

    55. Re:What complete nonsense by PvtVoid · · Score: 1

      I wonder how you're supposed to smelt it in space. Perhaps space air is flammable?

      https://vk.com/video51098255_1...

      You smelt it with the uranium you mine.

    56. Re:What complete nonsense by BlueMonk · · Score: 1

      Given what we just found (or rather, probably found a while back, but just decided was interesting)? Yeah, iron and nickel. In fact, it's already round-ish, so maybe we just make one giant one out of the core of that. :)

    57. Re:What complete nonsense by hey! · · Score: 1

      I have never met anybody that thinks we should give unlimited amounts of money to colleges and health insurance companies.

      Yes, but arguing with sensible proposals is too hard.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    58. Re:What complete nonsense by PvtVoid · · Score: 1

      I think it's in the British Museum.

      It's in the Egyptian Museum in Cairo.

    59. Re:What complete nonsense by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      Let's see you build an apple pie and an iPhone from scratch using only the materials you find on the asteroid.

    60. Re:What complete nonsense by PvtVoid · · Score: 1

      FWIW, there are diamonds in asteroids too.

      Where did you ever get that idea? Diamonds are only formed under conditions you will find on a planetary body:

      Most natural diamonds are formed at high temperature and pressure at depths of 140 to 190 kilometers (87 to 118 mi) in the Earth's mantle. Carbon-containing minerals provide the carbon source, and the growth occurs over periods from 1 billion to 3.3 billion years (25% to 75% of the age of the Earth).

      Ain't gonna happen on an asteroid. A basic rule of thumb is that asteroids will only contain igneous materials, never sedimentary or metamorphic.

    61. Re:What complete nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Diamonds have no real value you say. Maybe right then maybe not. What is value and how we attach it to things is a nice subject and consequences of the process of attaching value to things are for instance that we use fiat money that on the face of it is pretty worthless paper and some scrap metal. Hey I read once that in the wild west times huge part if not majority of hard currency in circulation was falsified and all worked well which is just a nice proof that we attach value to things. They do not have an intrinsic value in themselves. But you know it it is just shocking to know that diamonds and second hand diamonds have different price. But that is the same as to buy a new car - as soon as you paid your new car lost some value - because now it has attribute used. It did not even move from its paring lot. How strange are humans.

    62. Re:What complete nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Between the hoards of diamonds that DeBeers keeps locked up, and the ability to make them in a lab, there are a ~trillion of them. Diamonds have no real value, go sell one "used" and you'll find out much they're worth.

      Obligatory:-

      Have You Ever Tried to Sell a Diamond?

      The Diamond Myth

    63. Re:What complete nonsense by PvtVoid · · Score: 1

      Replying to myself with one caveat: there are lots of tiny diamonds in asteroids, formed mostly by pressure in collisions involving carbonaceous objects. Different animals, but still "diamonds" in the crystallographic sense.

    64. Re:What complete nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a flaw with your plan. Diamonds will poke holes in the tires. :)

    65. Re:What complete nonsense by siamesevodka · · Score: 1

      Relax, It's just Dr. Evil's cost estimate.

    66. Re: What complete nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Increasing the minimum wage makes economies dumber and poorer. Instead of being motivated to get educated to get better jobs with more pay, people say f this, I'll settle for minimum wage and, you know, have a life instead of working myself to death for pittance of an increase in pay and a lot of debt for a job where I have to work harder.

    67. Re:What complete nonsense by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      If my limited knowledge of nuclear energy is correct, then iron is also the furthest you can go down the periodic table before fusion stops being energy-positive. So if we ever master fusion, we might end up with a lot of leftover iron :)

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    68. Re:What complete nonsense by Notabadguy · · Score: 1

      You misunderstand. The asteroid has bank accounts worth 10 quintillion space bucks, and we're going to go try hacking the asteroid to steal it's money. Obviously bringing all that iron ore back to earth wouldn't give us 10 quadrillion bucks!

    69. Re:What complete nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I haven't had my coffee yet, but here goes. Steel is about 2% iron, so I have:

      ~127,550,000,000,000,000 tonnes of steel for 118 Death Stars.

    70. Re:What complete nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How much is it worth, already out of the atmosphere. What's the launch cost of that much weight?

    71. Re:What complete nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Give it up. Space nutters have an "answer" for everything. They think you just "setup a mine" and make stuff. They can't think beyond Minecraft and Star Trek.

    72. Re:What complete nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See, I need coffee. I meant to say steel is 2% carbon.

    73. Re: What complete nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Yet this very logic has been at the core of the minimum wage campaigns - "minimum wages haven't kept up with the growth of the economy". No, of course they haven't. The growth of the economy isn't caused by burger flippers becoming better at burger flipping. The two drivers of economic growth are the highly-educated side of the workforce and the increased use of capital. The two are closely connected because the deployment of capital in production typically requires engineers and the like.

      If anything, the current low interest rate should be seen as a problem. Any company that needs to increase production will have a simple choice between deploying more capital or more workers. The Fed has been keeping the rates low in the hope to produce more jobs. This is based on an outdated economic model where cheap capital allowed companies to build factories, which then employed workers. More new factories, more new jobs : a positive correlation between capital investment and employment. But it's no mathematical law that the correlation is positive, it turned negative when technology allowed the replacement of workers by capital. It's time the Fed wakes up to the reversal, and starts stimulating the economy by raising interest rates.

    74. Re:What complete nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If you can give a tiny handout to people who will spend it and then avoid the global financial crisis. How is that not a good thing?

    75. Re:What complete nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What's interesting was that at least 1/3 of the mined Spanish silver was going to China for goods there. That also caused a huge boom there as well, and poor investment. When the silver trade started drying up (due to Westphalia) the boom was over and crashed the Ming economy.

      What's also interesting was that there was a huge arbitrage deal going on. In China you could exchange silver to gold 1:7, while in Europe only 1:13, so you had people sailing to China to get in on that deal, since silver was China's reserve currency, while Europe was on the gold standard.

      Lastly, when the silver trade imbalance truly started getting out of hand, and Europe couldn't sell any of their products in China, Britain started to sell opium instead, and later blows up China for trying to stop the drug trade.

      Sound familiar? Globalization and trade imbalances have been happening for hundreds of years, with boom and bust cycles.

    76. Re:What complete nonsense by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

      I wonder how you're supposed to smelt it in space.

      You don't smelt it; it's not in an oxidized state.

    77. Re:What complete nonsense by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      That's a good point: the banks in Europe did appear to need some help with their reserves. But at some point, the object was no longer to save the banks from collapse, but to improve their reserves so that they could start lending money to businesses and individuals again, thus kickstarting the economy. But proponents in favour of helicopter money argue that the effect of such QE on the economy is slow and limited, and that giving cash in the hands of people directly is a far more effective way to aid the economy.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    78. Re: What complete nonsense by Solandri · · Score: 2

      $15/hr * 40 hr/wk * 50 wk/yr (2 weeks vacation) = $30,000/yr. Most people would consider that a living wage. Federal poverty level for a family of 4 is just $24,250/yr.

      So the $15/hr target is too high. If you target the poverty level for a family of 4 (assuming it's a single income family), the target is $12.12/hr. Poverty level for a single person is $11,770/yr, which translates into $5.89/hr, which is actually below the current minimum wage of $7.25/hr. So the current minimum wage is in the right ballpark of a compromise between singles and single-income families.

      Yes this assumes full employment throughout the year. The minimum wage has to be tied to productivity because wages are tied to productivity. If you try to set the minimum wage based on poverty levels for people not being productive the full year, you end up eliminating jobs of people who are fully employed and productive the full year. Inability to find full employment is an employment problem (number of jobs available), not a wage problem (how much you're paid for a job).

      IMHO the problem isn't the minimum wage, it's the capital gains tax is way too high for lower income people. People always complain the 15% capital gains tax is too low without really researching who actually pays a 15% income tax. The tax rate is graduated meaning just because you're in the 25% tax bracket doesn't mean you pay a 15% income tax. The threshold where you actually pay a 15% income tax (single, standard deduction) is about $58,500. The threshold where the average American pays 15% income tax (after credits, exemptions, and itemized deductions) is closer to $90,000 (you can figure this out from the IRS tax stats). So it makes little sense for people making less than this to invest their money when it's going to be taxed more than if they just spent it and increased their income via raises (e.g. raising the minimum wage) rather than investments/savings.

      The economy rewards you with income for two things - generating productivity (working), and deciding where productivity is needed (managing/investing). The current flat 15% capital gains tax effectively discourages lower income people from participating in the latter. It needs to be graduated like income tax so lower income people have more incentive to save and invest. (The rationale for the capital gains tax rate being lower than income tax rate at higher incomes is the same. It encourages rich people to invest their money thus re-injecting it into the economy, instead of wasting it on gold toilet seats. Same logic applies to lower income people, except some of them "waste" their money on big screen TVs, iPhones, car leases, etc.)

    79. Re: What complete nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you retarded? Seriously?

      They said nothing to disparage fiat currency. You fucking moron.

    80. Re: What complete nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're at $1.10 or $1.20 out of every dollar. This is impossible. I have my doubts about your expertise.

    81. Re:What complete nonsense by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

      What is this "need" that you speak of ? There's nothing in space that would be worth the insane expense of setting up an industry in the asteroid belt.

      The only way mining in space makes sense is if we have fully autonomous robots where we can send 4 of them to mars and they can go collect materials, create a forge, and start building stuff. If we ever get to that point, these same robots will have already replaced 95% of the human jobs on earth.

    82. Re:What complete nonsense by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      The $10 Quadrillion figure is total baloney. You can't just take the current value and extrapolate, because the price would fall as the supply rises.

      It is true that if you dumped all that metal on the market, its price would plummet. But that doesn't actually reduce the value of that metal.

      Price and value are two different things. The value of that metal is described by the stuff that you can build from it: bridges, towers, spacecraft, etc. That value doesn't actually change by having more of the stuff available. To understand the value of something, you look at the price of it.

      Price isn't a constant scale, and it changes over time. There are two different prices that are important here. To understand the value of that metal, looking at its current price is actually quite a good measure: that is how much better we would be off, in current dollars, if we got all that metal. The future price of that metal tells you its value on a different scale, the scale of a society where everybody is much richer because a dollar buys much more stuff.

      So, if you want to understand the value of that metal, look at it in current prices. The difference between how much that metal would (hypothetically) cost under current prices and how much it will cost once it's available and prices have plummeted is a measure of how much richer the world has become by making all that metal available.

    83. Re:What complete nonsense by Wrath0fb0b · · Score: 1

      Of course, heaviness means inertia, but travelling through hyperspace ain't like dusting crops, and inertia doesn't seem to be an impediment in any of the movies.

      And yet TIE Fighters and X-Wings still zip around doing gee-whiz flips and turns while Imperial Star Destroyers and other big ships plod along.

      Maybe consistency of physics isn't an impediment to movies either?

    84. Re:What complete nonsense by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      And then it still doesn't make sense, because Mars will still be an inhospitable hell hole where nobody would want to live.

    85. Re:What complete nonsense by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

      I heard the accompanying video's talking head saying "...an asteroid with so much money, it could easily solve the worlds..." and then I shut it off.

      Unless we can convert iron directly into food then it really doesn't solve any problems. Iron is already pretty cheap at only about 4 cents per pound and there is plenty of it to go around. If we could somehow get that iron to earth then the price of iron would approach zero but what exactly does this solve? It would likely lower the cost of skyscrapers and cars a little but probably not a lot. There is probably less than $100 worth of iron in a car so that is not a significant portion of the price of a car. The only use case I can think of for a huge amount of additional iron would be interstellar spacecrafts but it would take a ton of energy to melt it into ibeams, etc.. not to mention that something like an interstellar spacecraft is likely going to need electronics and a lot of other stuff that isn't made of iron. Really, there is very little in space that is going to solve the problems we have on earth. The resources we have on earth that people actually need are food, land, and finished goods none of which are found in space. The raw materials that go into making the finished goods are actually a minimal part of the final price.

    86. Re:What complete nonsense by tburkhol · · Score: 1

      This asteroid is "potentially the size of Mars." There are reasons other than cost of fuel not to bring it to Earth.

    87. Re:What complete nonsense by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      Price is actually a very good indicator of value. When you've built all the bridges, towers, spacecraft, etc you need, using only 0.1% of the asteroid, the remaining 99.9% doesn't have much value anymore.

    88. Re:What complete nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Of course, heaviness means inertia, but travelling through hyperspace ain't like dusting crops, and inertia doesn't seem to be an impediment in any of the movies.

      And yet TIE Fighters and X-Wings still zip around doing gee-whiz flips and turns while Imperial Star Destroyers and other big ships plod along.

      Maybe consistency of physics isn't an impediment to movies either?

      Inertia is the answer. The scenes where Star Destroyers smack into each other and where the Super Star Destroyer crashes into the Death Star shows that inertia does matter in Starwars. Note how it was considered a dubious boast that a ship the size of the Millennium Falcon can outrun far larger imperial ships, showing that maximum speed is irrelevant to size (magic space reactors producing whatever amount of energy needed for the plot). What small mass ships like TIE Fighters and X-Wings can do is change direction and accelerate much faster because of having less inertia.

      Hell yeah, nerd fights on slashdot!

      Make Slashdot Great Again!

    89. Re: What complete nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why does the poverty level matter? It's an arbitrary number. Go ahead and actually try supporting a family of four on 24k a year. Go ahead and try supporting yourself on 11.8k a year. Rent an apartment, get a car, get a cellphone (how long has it been since you worked a low-end job? Without those two things, you are staying unemployed.), pay for food, account for taxes: local, state, federal, salestax, etc. You would be going to charities for dinner more often than not. The poverty level in many areas of the country is not even one full step up from being working and homeless.

      When basing all your reasoning on the arbitrary poverty level, which has been far too low for two generations, the rest of your argument falls apart. The rest isn't even worth reading. Example, "The economy rewards you with income for two things - generating productivity (working), and deciding where productivity is needed (managing/investing)." No the economy only rewards one thing: appearance. That is how hardworking stiffs that keep their head down get no credit while Trump is president.

    90. Re: What complete nonsense by mesterha · · Score: 1

      $15/hr * 40 hr/wk * 50 wk/yr (2 weeks vacation) = $30,000/yr. Most people would consider that a living wage. Federal poverty level for a family of 4 is just $24,250/yr.

      Well the parent claimed the upper bound is for 20 hr/wk. So this would give $24/hr to make it to poverty for a family of 4. Still it seems somewhat arbitrary. You want to make minimum wage just enough for them to squeak by. Why not give people more.

      Yes this assumes full employment throughout the year. The minimum wage has to be tied to productivity because wages are tied to productivity. If you try to set the minimum wage based on poverty levels for people not being productive the full year, you end up eliminating jobs of people who are fully employed and productive the full year. Inability to find full employment is an employment problem (number of jobs available), not a wage problem (how much you're paid for a job).

      I don't understand your reasoning. What does poverty levels have to do with this. The only risk of increasing the minimum wage is substitution. Businesses will need to increase prices which might cause people to change how they use their money. For example, people might not go out to eat if it costs too much. Instead they will cook at home.

      This is compensated by the fact that the people who get more money have more money to spend and can stimulate the economy. While there is a concern for inflation, it is limited since only a fraction of the working force is getting this raise. Roughly, it is more about a transfer of wealth from the people earning more than the new minimum wage to the people making less than the new minimum wage.

      Poverty levels matter in a different way. Currently we are subsidizing business that pay below the poverty line. Their employees need to receive government assistance. Tax payers are essentially giving money to these businesses.

      IMHO the problem isn't the minimum wage, it's the capital gains tax is way too high for lower income people. People always complain the 15% capital gains tax is too low without really researching who actually pays a 15% income tax. The tax rate is graduated meaning just because you're in the 25% tax bracket doesn't mean you pay a 15% income tax. The threshold where you actually pay a 15% income tax (single, standard deduction) is about $58,500. The threshold where the average American pays 15% income tax (after credits, exemptions, and itemized deductions) is closer to $90,000 (you can figure this out from the IRS tax stats). So it makes little sense for people making less than this to invest their money when it's going to be taxed more than if they just spent it and increased their income via raises (e.g. raising the minimum wage) rather than investments/savings.

      Again I don't understand your argument. Yes, it does seem unfair that "poor" people potentially have a higher capital tax rate than income tax rate, but why would that entice them to spend it as opposed to invest it. Of course, it's moot since these people don't make enough money to have significant investment.

      Same logic applies to lower income people, except some of them "waste" their money on big screen TVs, iPhones, car leases, etc.)

      They are not wasting their money. They are stimulating and directing production. People need to consume things generated by these businesses. Do you expect the rich to drive production. How many iPhones can they buy? IMHO it would be bad for the economy if more "poor" people tried to invest. It would damage consumption.

      --

      Chris Mesterharm
    91. Re:What complete nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One day, yes.

      20 years ago you couldn't build an iPhone anywhere on earth.

    92. Re:What complete nonsense by lgw · · Score: 0

      "Helicopter money" and "QE" are not some sort of opposite or choice. QE is the latest form of printing money. Want to give helicopter money out? It needs to come from somewhere - taxes, borrowing, or QE. Government spending was massive during the great recession, and QE helped pay for it.

      The trade off is "helicopter money" vs "bank bailouts". Bush and Obama both chose bank bailouts. Almost 2 trillion worth. They could have given about $5000 to every American instead. Either way, though QE would have paid for it.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    93. Re:What complete nonsense by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

      And then it still doesn't make sense, because Mars will still be an inhospitable hell hole where nobody would want to live.

      If we had autonomous robots that could build giant steel cities then there is nothing that says we couldn't make it hospitable. We would need a huge amount of energy to do it but if you had something along the lines of "Great Wolf Lodge" or "Mall of America", you could in theory create a place where people could live comfortably without ever going outside. This would not be all that different than the many people who rarely if ever leave the city they live and work in. But again, we are talking city scale construction (or at the very least mall size) and you would either have to ship a ton of equipment there or somehow bootstrap a modern factory starting with basically nothing.

    94. Re:What complete nonsense by lgw · · Score: 2

      You don't need to smelt it: smelting is a purification process. But this particular asteroid is worthless.

      The first asteroid of commercial value will be a CHON asteroid very close to Earth . Moved into high orbit and used to make rocket fuel, it's a fundamental missing piece of a space economy. (Plus, the only way to ever get the fuel to move the first asteroid is if that asteroid is made of fuel). Naturally, automated robotics has a way to go first, but automated robotics seems very plausible these days.

      The you want an aluminum asteroid, not a nickel-iron one. The first ship built mostly in space will be built mostly of aluminum (well, it will be mostly fuel like any rocket, but then the aluminum).

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    95. Re:What complete nonsense by dryeo · · Score: 2

      It's hard enough to fuse hydrogen that we'll probably never do that, little well fusing neon into iron.
      The Sun barely fuses hydrogen (the amount of energy produced in the core per sq. metre is quite low, there's just a lot of sq metres) and even when it reaches end of life and much more compact, it'll barely fuse helium. Iron (and nickel) are only produced in the largest stars due to the heat and pressure required.
      With luck,we'll get fusing deuterium and such in a controlled energy positive manner.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    96. Re:What complete nonsense by lgw · · Score: 1

      The asteroid belt make no economic sense until there's already a thriving economy in space. Fortunately there are plenty of asteroids made of useful stuff very near Earth (not that I would consider nickel-iron "useful stuff" in this context).

      An asteroid that you can make rocket fuel from, dragged into high Earth orbit, will be commercially viable once the cost of getting stuff into orbit drops enough.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    97. Re:What complete nonsense by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      If we assume that Psyche itself is a purely metallic 'cannonball', we will go to chondrite and carbonaceous chondrite asteroids for the other material we would need to grow your trees and build your iPhone. Since chondrites are 75% of all asteroids, Psyche was highlighted as being a particularly good place for metals mining.

    98. Re:What complete nonsense by lgw · · Score: 1

      The only objective notion of value is: what it sells for. Every individual values things differently. A market discovers the balance between supply (of different amounts at different costs) and peoples various ideas of value (different for everyone).

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    99. Re:What complete nonsense by perpenso · · Score: 1

      Your citation says that not all diamonds are tiny.

      "Traditionally, experts have argued that diamonds in meteorites form when asteroids collide. The shock of the crash is enough to crush carbon into tiny diamonds. The gems founds in fragments of the Almahata Sitta, however, are too large to have been created that way, says the paper. Instead, they are likely to have been formed inside a "planetesimal” — a celestial body not quite large enough to count as a planet, but far bigger than any asteroid."

    100. Re:What complete nonsense by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      The cost of terrestrial mining is going up fast as near-surface materials are exhausted, requiring us to dig deeper, and because of steadily more restrictive environmental policies. Here in Arizona, a new multibillion dollar copper deposit is about to go unexploited because it's in the territory of one endangered species.

      Robots are getting better, access to space is getting cheaper, while terrestrial mining is getting more expensive. It is inevitable that at some point the lines on the graph will cross.

    101. Re: What complete nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The purpose of smelting is to reduce iron oxide to elemental iron. Very little of the iron in a meteorite is oxidized. One doesn't need to smelt it, instead just melt it and scrape the dross.

    102. Re:What complete nonsense by Godwin+O'Hitler · · Score: 2

      And conversely, when the Big Honcho In Japan decided to make the biggest ever bronze Buddah to put in in the Todai-ji temple, it used so much bronze that bronze was like gold in Japan afterwards.

      --
      No, your children are not the special ones. Nor are your pets.
    103. Re:What complete nonsense by Godwin+O'Hitler · · Score: 0

      Did you really have to use third rate science fiction in your analogy?

      --
      No, your children are not the special ones. Nor are your pets.
    104. Re: What complete nonsense by mesterha · · Score: 1

      On reflection, another risk of increasing the minimum wage is based on international competition and technology. I'm less concerned about international competition since many of these jobs can't easily be outsourced, (but I don't really know the statistics). I think technology is the bigger concern particularly in the long term and increasing the minimum wage will just accelerate the inevitable loss of jobs. Perhaps one could use this as a justification to NOT increase the minimum wage to give us more time to prepare. I'm skeptical, as I think the real reason we haven't automated more is not the cost of the technology but the development of that technology.

      Capitalism has a fundamental problem that it treats workers as both consumers and cogs. When that breaks, the current system will not work. The easy answer seems to basic income funded by taxes. It would cause the minimum disruption to our current system.

      --

      Chris Mesterharm
    105. Re:What complete nonsense by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      The only objective notion of value is: what it sells for.

      Price is indeed how we quantify value. But price is not a constant scale, so you have to decide what point in time you report something on. When you want to understand the value of something in units that you are familiar with, you need to use a scale that you understand, namely today's prices.

    106. Re:What complete nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The various Death Stars seem to have spent a large amount of time orbiting planets and moons. As such, even in stable orbit, they would be experiencing large amounts of internal stresses due to gravity gradients, which would be proportional to the mass of the construction materials. So, if you want a long-lasting space battlestation with lower maintenance requirements, and are given the choice between two materials of similar strength and workability, density should be a factor. Remember construction cost is just one line item in your ROI calculation. I have a business card here somewhere if you'd like more info.

    107. Re:What complete nonsense by lgw · · Score: 1

      Sure, inflation-adjusting historical prices can make sense, though a lot of bias can be snuck in by how you do the inflation-adjusting, so it's good to watch for that. It's also helpful to understand prices in terms like hours of work at the media wage.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    108. Re:What complete nonsense by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      Price is actually a very good indicator of value.

      It is. But you can't compare prices over time. If I tell you that steel will cost $300/ton in 50 years, you have no idea whether that represents more or less value than today. If you want to understand the value of something in terms of dollars, you can only do so in today's dollars.

      When you've built all the bridges, towers, spacecraft, etc you need, using only 0.1% of the asteroid, the remaining 99.9% doesn't have much value anymore.

      You're right that if the market for metals could be saturated, then the incremental value of an additional ton of metal would be next to zero. I don't think, however, that that is true: metals are so universally useful that the market for them will never saturate. If we could bring the entire mass of Pallas to earth, people would create vast engineering projects out of it. If we managed to get it into earth orbit, it would be the start of the creation massive orbital habitats and factories.

      If we brought Pallas to earth, the price of metals could fall to near zero, or it might stay the same, we simply don't know; that's really an arbitrary choice of monetary policy.

      Of course, those are rough arguments, and they are long term arguments too. In the short term, flooding the market with massive amounts of new metal would saturate it because the rest of the economy just isn't set up to utilize the metal.

      Nevertheless, my point stands: utilizing the metal from Pallas would make us enormously more wealthy, and looking at it from the perspective of "it would flood the market and the prices would drop to near zero, so no gain" is just wrong.

    109. Re:What complete nonsense by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      My point is that the "$10 quadrillion" price isn't as silly as it may sound and represents real value. Right now, the world economy is about $200 trillion. It might take 100-200 years to use all that metal. $10 quadrillion corresponds to about an 11% annual growth rate in the economy in constant dollars over 100 years or 5% annual growth rate over 200 years (we're currently at about 4%).

      I think injecting 10^20 kg of ready-to-use metal into the world economy could easily double or triple growth rates like that over the next century or two, which tells me that the valuation of the metal in terms of current prices actually yields a fairly reasonable estimate of its value to humanity, no matter what the nominal per ton price of metals may end up being.

    110. Re: What complete nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "minimum wage needs to be enough that someone working 20hrs/week can support a whole family"
      There are people who earn a lot more than the minimum wage but they would have trouble supporting a family if they are only working 20hrs/week. If you want to support your family you are going to need to work for it. Standing around complaining about the inequities in the world is not going to get you very far. The number one factor in determining the quality of your life is the choices each of us make in our lives. Raging against the government while simultaneously demanding the same government make your life better doesn't look like a very feasible tactic.
        And who cares how much the asteroid is worth. The real benefit is that NASA has committed to endeavor but to accomplish that goal will require creating the technology needed to meet their goal. Just intercepting the asteroid could be done today. Creating the technology to actually mine the asteroid and deliver the mined materials back to Earth will take some work and a whole lot of money.

    111. Re:What complete nonsense by lgw · · Score: 1

      It's not that hard to get iron, and there's no shortage of it. The asteroid would never be worth the cost of moving it to somewhere useful. And nickel-iron isn't a particularly useful material in space, being very heavy.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    112. Re:What complete nonsense by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      All at once, or slowly trickled out? The point is not who it's sold to, but how it's sold.

      We don't value raw materials by proven reserves. We value them by current supply and demand.

    113. Re:What complete nonsense by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Yes you would, because as soon as the technology exists to exploit asteroidal materials, any rise in market price of your product will cause other asteroids to be mined.

      Way to miss the point and be wrong at the same time. Go ask NASA to borrow one of their rockets and see how you go. There's this thing called R&D that goes into developing a new source of materials and a concept known as the first mover advantage which when combined with high R&D costs grants a natural monopoly. My guess is that if we brought down this asteroid BHP Billiton won't have another down within a year. ... or ten.

    114. Re:What complete nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You make a good point, BUT a trillion one carat diamonds would be enough to embed as a grid 10 ft wide and 26 million ft long. If the average driveway is 50 ft then that's enough for about half a million. Using them "as gravel" means you'd need a layer an inch or two deep. Assuming you could pack them at about 2/3rds of their bulk density (3.53 g/cc), 1 trillion 1 carat diamonds would make a 3 m wide, 4 cm deep path about 440 miles long. While this is a long road, it isn't anywhere near enough to replace the gravel on all gravel driveways.

    115. Re: What complete nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Induction heating can melt metals fine. All you need is enough electricity.

    116. Re:What complete nonsense by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      It's not that hard to get iron, and there's no shortage of it.

      It requires exploration, mining, transport, and smelting; that's where most of the cost is.

      And nickel-iron isn't a particularly useful material in space, being very heavy.

      Weight is only a concern in space due to launch costs. If you already have the metal in space, iron is an excellent material.

    117. Re: What complete nonsense by dougdonovan · · Score: 0

      the rothschilds could...maybe...put down 1% ish ...over 20 years just do the math

    118. Re:What complete nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A one carat diamond may be worth $10,000, but if there were suddenly a trillion of them ...

      FWIW, there are diamonds in asteroids too.

      When it comes to diamonds, a one carat diamond gift (usually jewelry) isn't what's worth $10,000. The diamond is only a symbol meaning 'Society says that to express the feeling that you are important to me at the present time, I must sacrifice a meaningful amount of useful capitol and waste $10,000 on a rock. Here.' The sentiment is what's actually worth $10,000.

      Why not other 'things' that are more valuable? Why not give a gift of:
      Painite 300,000/g
      Californium 252 27,000,000/g
      Antimatter 100,000,000,000,000/g

    119. Re:What complete nonsense by jwhyche · · Score: 0

      Diamonds are pretty much worth next to nothing already. The only thing that makes them worth as much as they are is artificial scarcity.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    120. Re:What complete nonsense by dbIII · · Score: 1

      As I wrote above and you missed "we are talking seriously way out SF stuff here".

    121. Re:What complete nonsense by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Thank you.

    122. Re: What complete nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you stupid fuck. try being a member of.the "entrepreneur class" without.capital. ps: no caps due to.broken keyboard .

    123. Re:What complete nonsense by khallow · · Score: 1

      If you can give a tiny handout to people who will spend it and then avoid the global financial crisis. How is that not a good thing?

      If I could pop a ballooon and then ...
      If I could wish really hard and then ...
      If I could wear a green shirt that day and then ...

      The global financial crisis would not have been avoided by giving a tiny handout to people than it would, if I happened to wear a green shirt that day. It doesn't undo the years of bad decisions leading up to the crisis. It doesn't change that society was greatly malinvested due to so much of society putting their wealth into real estate investments of this sort. It doesn't change the amounts of leverage where high amounts of borrowed funds were used to make bad investments.

      Sure, it would be a good thing, if it could be managed. But it wouldn't have been managed.

    124. Re: What complete nonsense by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Money is also a commodity. The amount of other things that money can be traded for depends in great part on the ratio of money to other things. There is no need to expand the currency supply provided that it is adequately divisible; however keeping the price of things stable is generally beneficial. That does make the expansion of the money supply roughly the same as population growth a good thing.

      "without the monetary supply being able to expand there would be no money for poor <rude language> like you." is demonstrably false.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    125. Re: What complete nonsense by ChrisMaple · · Score: 0

      There is a point where raising the minimum wage continues to be beneficial; we have not reached that point

      We are already at that point and well beyond. High minimum wage is one of the reasons that the unemployment rate among young black males exceeds 50%. That in turn leads to the drug trade and gang violence, and the high murder rate in cities like Chicago.

      In addition to such immediately practical considerations, there's the more fundamental problem that enforcement of minimum wage is a violation of several freedoms.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    126. Re: What complete nonsense by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      The car ownership rate in Manhattan is 23%. Car ownership is not necessary in many densely populated areas. Cell phones are unnecessary toys.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    127. Re:What complete nonsense by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      Of course they have real value. If you buy one for $10k you may only be able to sell it for $3k, but that's still REAL value. And that really just means the "value" was $3K and you paid too much originally.

      I don't disagree that the diamond industry is a complete and utter scam, but like many luxuries, art, etc value is what the market decides it is.

    128. Re: What complete nonsense by mdenham · · Score: 1

      High minimum wage is one of the reasons that the unemployment rate among young black males exceeds 50%.

      Are we talking the government's unemployment figures or "percentage of young black males not employed"? If it's the former, I'd hazard a guess that the predominant reason is their peer group tells them they're lame for working and so they quit/get fired.

      If it's the latter, part of the problem is the inflation of requirements for entry-level positions, and that there's only so many minimum-wage jobs to go around... and it's likely an across-the-board, without respect to race or gender, high percentage of young people who aren't employed.

    129. Re:What complete nonsense by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

      It would be a lot more interesting to go after palladium, platinum, iridium and other metals like that, rhodium, osmium and ruthenium.

      Bringing back a dozen tonnes of palladium or iridium would be useful. Worthless materials might be useful to built a reentry vehicle (i.e. like an Apollo capsule or nuclear warhead or Shuttle), unless it's actually cheaper to launch the reentry vehicle from Earth and transfer the materials flown from the asteroid belt into it.
      But, it's dubious. If you need say a $500 billion investment to get this started, how long does it take just to break even with all the resources you've used down on Earth?

      Like, what about looking for these very precious metals as fission products in piles of nuclear waste, transmuting some of them when that's needed. I once looked for that on the internet and wikipedia, just for fun. It does seem barely doable. Fascinating. I'd love we do it, and it's available right here on Earth, talk about ISRU. But on first approximation, it's madness.

    130. Re:What complete nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      right now health insurance companies cost you about 30 cents for every dollar of your health care. ... the finance guys and upper management wont' mention it since it is their salaries at stake

      The company I work for uses a non-profit insurance company that so happens to own a large number of the hospitals in my state, and they also reflected this. They're pretty open about their costs. They pretty much said that if they had it their way, they would be out of jobs but the cost of providing service at their hospitals would be much lower if they didn't need to go through all of the red tape of insurance claims. We actually have doctor's offices and dentists that will reduce your bill ~60% if you don't use insurance.

    131. Re:What complete nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i can't believe you talk so nonchalantly.

      it is "helicopter money" when, god forbid, anyone suggest the normal people should get such "handouts" and "welfare"

      but the bankers do the same thing, all day long, every day, for centuries, with fractional reserves......"more effective way to aid the economy" is beating around the bush.

      the current system is slavery. SAY IT. JUST SAY IT.

      bankers get free money to "loan" to everyone...and you see nothing wrong with this?

      how about "that is slavery for everyone else"

      instead "well, gee whiz, helicopter money would be nice...but the bankers turned it down. too bad, so sad"

      the current system is slavery. enough said. "reserves" is a fancy word for "99% of the time we are creating fake money, loaning out things we don't have, didn't work for"

      again, why not call it what it is? SLAVERY. bankers get to create money, and use false balance sheets, and false accounting. anyone else who does this goes to jail.

      bankers have legalized their theft and looting, calling it "reserves" and "fractional reserves" when they rob you.

      of course, it is the direct opposite. they are "loaning" money that does not exist, that they do not possess, that they don't even have paper IOU notes for nowadays since it is 90% digital.

      call it what it is FRAUD THEFT SLAVERY CORRUPTION.

      why beat around the bush? i am not being "ironic" by the way. you seriously need a reality check.

    132. Re:What complete nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you say "reserves"-amato i say "eternal usury slavery"-amato.

    133. Re: What complete nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ....I think you meant to say .2% carbon. Cast iron is 2.5-4% carbon.

    134. Re:What complete nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Won't happen for a few more years? Does that mean there's a plan, or that it must happen regardless? Either way, sounds promising :)

    135. Re: What complete nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cellphones are cheaper than land-lines over here. Nearly every company is gutting land-lands. Many houses and apartments do not come with land-lines any more. With something like a $200 installation costs plus paying a professional to run RJ11 through the dwelling-unit.

    136. Re:What complete nonsense by strikethree · · Score: 1

      You were already at +5 so my ownership of mod points does not matter at this time...

      But damn. That was good. 115 Death Stars. Very digestible... insofar as I can digest the amount of iron needed for a Death Star.

      Thank you.

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    137. Re:What complete nonsense by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Induction furnaces.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      The same way steel foundries on Earth do it.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    138. Re:What complete nonsense by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Maybe the goal is to run a test of the moon creation theories...

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    139. Re:What complete nonsense by DarthVain · · Score: 1

      There is another good example, though I forget his name at the moment. He was an African King (or whatever alternate term), who was vastly wealthy due to gold mines. I believe he went on a long journey I think to Mecca or something. As a show of his magnificence he basically gave away gold all along the way, essentially devaluing it and destroying economies all along the route he took. He also traveled with the largest library on camels, though I may be mixing up my stories on that point.

    140. Re:What complete nonsense by DarthVain · · Score: 1

      Um Bronze isn't a mined commodity. I'm pretty sure it is an alloy of tin and copper. So either they started running out of tin and/or copper (which would make them worth more), or running out of smelting capacity to produce the bronze, which I expect made the smelters rich, but little effect on either tin or copper. Bronze might have taken a sharp incline very temporarily if used all at once and took awhile for smelting to bring more to market, but I can't see that as having more than a blip of impact,

    141. Re:What complete nonsense by sudon't · · Score: 1

      You can keep prices high only when you don't sell much. But if you don't sell much, you will never recover the capital expense of retrieving the asteroid.

      Don't worry. No one is retrieving any asteroids. Meanwhile, DeBeers has control over the buying and selling of almost all diamonds, which is why they're so over-priced.

      --
      -- sudon't

      Air-ride Equipped

  2. How large?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    "Potentially as large as Mars"? According to Wikipedia: Psyche16: 200km in diameter. Mars: 6800km in diameter

    1. Re:How large?!? by meerling · · Score: 1

      LoL, you noticed that too. :D

    2. Re:How large?!? by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      "Potentially as large as Mars"?

      Reminds me of my old football coach, ever the optimist.

      Sports Reporter: "Coach, your quarterback just fumbled the ball several times and threw nothing but interceptions."

      Coach: "Yeah, but he has POTENTIAL."

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    3. Re:How large?!? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Informative

      "Potentially as large as Mars"? According to Wikipedia: Psyche16: 200km in diameter. Mars: 6800km in diameter

      That was mangled in the summary, but TFA says that it may be the remaining core of a planet destroyed in a collision, that was potentially as large as Mars.

    4. Re:How large?!? by Calydor · · Score: 1

      I read that line and wondered why it wasn't listed as a planet if it was as large as one.

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    5. Re:How large?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's still not clear if the thing that is potentially as large as Mars is "core", "planet", or "collision".

    6. Re:How large?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lets say, the core of Mars is potentially as large as the core of this thing.

    7. Re:How large?!? by Jack9 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Google: asteroid belt mass

      The entirety of the asteroid belt is just over 4% of the moon. There are very few large chunks by any sci-fi standard. Why anyone would go to the very far and dangerous belt, when you can just strip mine the moon (which has caught a very large number of asteroid impacts over the millennia). This is the same as the humans living on Mars nonsense. It's impractical and currently impossible.

      --

      Often wrong but never in doubt.
      I am Jack9.
      Everyone knows me.
    8. Re:How large?!? by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      Living on Mars is certainly not impossible, we have the technology. We just need to deal with risk, accidents and deaths, health issues, the incredible expense of getting a colony set up, and the idea of going without iPhones, health care, toilet paper and any form of luxury so we can pay for the ongoing resupply missions. So sure, it's a little impractical at the moment. But not impossible.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    9. Re:How large?!? by redmid17 · · Score: 1

      Because fucking with a moon that orbits your planet and is partially responsible for water levels, tides, et al is beyond retarded. Then it's not really exposed Then you also have the decades of treaties governing the ban of commercial exploitation of the moon. We also know exactly how exposed these resources are (eg directly on the surface of the asteroid).

      So why would anyone? Because they've thought about it for more than 2 seconds and seem to actually have studied the issue. And the Space Act's legality is tenuous at best, probably closer to outright illegal.

    10. Re:How large?!? by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      How much mass do you think we could mine from the moon, expressed in percentages of its current mass ?

    11. Re:How large?!? by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      "Potentially as large as Mars"? According to Wikipedia: Psyche16: 200km in diameter. Mars: 6800km in diameter

      That was mangled in the summary, but TFA says that it may be the remaining core of a planet destroyed in a collision, that was potentially as large as Mars.

      Hmm. Wasn't the Earth in its early days hit by a Mars sized object, which also happened to create the Moon?

    12. Re: How large?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your ass is as large as Mars.

    13. Re: How large?!? by TWX · · Score: 1

      Get your ass to Mars.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    14. Re:How large?!? by flopsquad · · Score: 1

      They meant the hype for the asteroid is almost as large as Mars. This steely space rock is gonna be uuuuuuuuuge!

      --
      Nothing posted to /. has ever been legal advice, including this.
    15. Re:How large?!? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      I think they might mean it is likely a planet core of iron and potentially the same size as Mars' core.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    16. Re:How large?!? by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2

      "Potentially as large as Mars"? According to Wikipedia: Psyche16: 200km in diameter. Mars: 6800km in diameter

      The journalism curriculum needs a lot more basic science in it.

    17. Re:How large?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All of it. It's just a question of time.

    18. Re:How large?!? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      I guess the moon is still massive enough to have significant gravity. I don't know how he numbers work out, but it's possible that the extra energy needed to boost iron out of the moon's gravity well exceeds the cost to mine the astroid, depending on where the end product is going.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    19. Re:How large?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The people who make space mining happen will have very rich descendants.

    20. Re:How large?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Opportunity, expansion, and profit of course! Hollow out a few choice asteroids, spin them up for 'gravity', and live inside. The rock protects from radiation. For energy: solar isn't quite as effective out there, so augmenting with nuclear power would probably be the way to go. Search the belt for spectral signs of thorium or whatever for an easily minable fuel source. If fusion ever comes through (I know, I know it'll always be 30 years away, but by the time people are colonizing the asteroid belt who knows) then that is an easy fuel source available in the outer belt beyond the snow line.

      Another reason to live out in the belt is to avoid living at the bottom of a big gravity well. Some people who are conditioned to and love space travel will feel trapped at the bottom of a deep well. There is an advantage to being mobile in the shallows.

    21. Re:How large?!? by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      The entirety of the asteroid belt is just over 4% of the moon. There are very few large chunks by any sci-fi standard. Why anyone would go to the very far and dangerous belt, when you can just strip mine the moon

      You would go there precisely because those bodies have almost no gravity; you can land on them and take off with almost no fuel. In fact, you can simply tow them into lunar or earth orbit with almost no fuel.

      I'm not sure why you think the asteroid belt is "dangerous"; it's not the whirling mass of rocks that you see on SciFi.

    22. Re:How large?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First it needs a lot more remedial grammer

    23. Re: How large?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That bothered me too. There's no way that would be unknown that close in to our orbit. Plus, the thing isn't even spherical. Something as large as a planet can't keep an oblong shape like that for long. Gravity will collapse it.

    24. Re:How large?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look up Lagrange points and 'space super highways'. This has to do with inertia vs gravity. Going to a planet or moon and coming back is much more expensive than cruising through empty space.

      TLDR: It is cheaper by far to do this than to goto the moon or mars and back.

      Once a spacecraft has attained escape velocity from one gravity well, it is cheap to move around in open space, and these Lagrange points - special locations where two gravity wells intersect and cancel out - allow for cheap and interesting maneuvers and travel. Entering another gravity well - the moon - and then having to leave said gravity well, requires a lot of fuel.

      A LOT.

      Want to goto the asteroid belt and return? get into a high orbit, do some gravity assist slingshots from the local earth gravity well to get escape velocity, then cruise out to the belt and into a solar-oribit. Later, use a tiny amount of fuel to 'brake' your orbit and fall back in system - back to earth, for nearly free. you still have to brake when you get there.

      Want to do the same thing and goto the moon? You will need several times the delta-V to land safely first on the moon, then liftoff again.

      ----
      Want to harvest an asteroid in the belt for a few quintillion? Build your probe so it lands on the end of the asteroid facing it's orbital motion and then fire your thruster to 'brake' the asteroid. A tiny fraction of energy is needed, because once you have braked it it _will_ fall down into the sun's gravity well. Time your thruster firing right and use just the right amount of fuel and you can send it spiraling down towards a Lagrange point near earth where you brake it again to a stop. Mine away, and from there it is cheap to 'drop' small controlled chunks back down to the earth. You could technically brake the entire asteroid it directly from the belt to the earth's surface, but there would be a few unpleasant side effects (mass extinction).

      If we want to build a space station as a way-station for further exploration, or just as a colony, a lunar or solar Lagrange point would provide a perfect location.

    25. Re:How large?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Because fucking with a moon that orbits your planet and is partially responsible for water levels, tides, et al is beyond retarded.
      > Then it's not really exposed Then you also have the decades of treaties governing the ban of commercial exploitation of the moon

      Almost as bad as fucking with your environment planetside? Your thinking is not in line with what will likely happen. Coming up with reasons to not do a thing based on tradition or fear is the hallmark of a small mind hoping to be called smart. SMH

    26. Re:How large?!? by schnell · · Score: 1

      The journalism curriculum needs a lot more basic science in it.

      The problem wasn't in TFA, it was in the submitter's headline and the consequent lack of editing or fact-checking that it received from a Slashdot "editor." I'm unsure whether that bespeaks more of a need for basic science/math education among Slashdot submitters or a need for a Turing test for Slashdot editors to see if they're just bots approving random submissions based on flamebait keywords. I'm pretty sure I could just completely fabricate a story titled "Trump iPhones Zuckerberg's Laid Off IT Workers and Stallman To Net Neutrality Android Is Awesome" and see it sail through unchecked.

      --
      "95% of all Slashdot .sig quotes are incorrect or completely fabricated." -Benjamin Franklin
    27. Re:How large?!? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't bet my life on the structural integrity of an asteroid.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    28. Re:How large?!? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      The moon seems like it would be the optimum place for solar-powered rail guns. Conventional fuel is only needed to get there

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    29. Re:How large?!? by Dahamma · · Score: 2

      That's stupid. We have been fucking with the planet we LIVE ON for thousands of years. We couldn't make a dent in the mass of the moon if we hammered it with nuclear missiles, let alone mining.

    30. Re:How large?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you on drugs? You say "fucking with the moon" as if we could _possibly_ do something to it... Do you have any idea how large the moon is? You might as well worry about a single ant "fucking with an elephant".

      For fuck's sake.. The largest open pit copper mine in the world is 0.6 miles (970 m) deep, 2.5 miles (4 km) wide, and covering 1,900 acres (770 ha). That wouldn't even be VISIBLE to the eye on Earth if it was located on the MOON.

      This mine has been in operation for 110 YEARS and it's only that big. Yeah.. No.. 1,900 acres is not large. Not in the context of celestial bodies.... How badly do you really think we can "fuck up the moon"?

      Retard.....

    31. Re:How large?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First you have an incomplete sentence. Second, you clearly do not understand the cost of space travel and what determines cost. The gravity well of the Earth and Moon makes any travel more expensive. Once a craft has escaped the Earth's pull then long distances are relatively cheap. Landing on a gravitationally significant object like the Moon or Mars is also very expensive and difficult. Asteroids have the cost of escaping the Earth just as any space destination. They do not have the difficult and expensive landing which is a characteristic of other destinations like the other planets and the Moon.

          The small size of asteroids is a beneficial feature. We know the there are asteroids bearing significant mineral resources that are not huge. This poses the possibility of moving such an asteroid to earth where it can be processed for minerals. Such a mission would be less nonsensical than a Mars mission because it would be robotic and would require no expensive planetary landings. It would also provide resources rather than simply consuming them.

    32. Re:How large?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you fucking idiot you don't understand the moon's relationship with life on earth - hint the moon is really as old as the last time earth was a ball of magma

  3. economics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    dumping that much extra iron into the economy would make the "value" close to zero.

    1. Re:economics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The last time dumping like this happened it was several billion years before the economy recovered, so I question your use of the word "close".

    2. Re:economics by rossz · · Score: 1

      The raw material might be worth very little, but I bet processed ore would be worth quite a bit. Building the first space based smelt would be a bitch, though.

      --
      -- Will program for bandwidth
    3. Re:economics by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      If most of the cost of iron is in processing, it doesn't make sense to do it in space, where the cost will be orders of magnitude more.

    4. Re:economics by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      The raw material might be worth very little, but I bet processed ore would be worth quite a bit.

      Raw material or processed ore wouldn't be worth the bother on Earth.

      At the top of the gravity well, on the other hand, it could be worth quite a lot, potentially. It's easier to reach Earth orbit from 16 Psyche than from the Earth, looks like. Takes longer, of course, but less deltaV.

      And that ignores high Isp options that are available to 16 Psyche that aren't available from the ground....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    5. Re:economics by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      It's not worth anything at the top of the gravity well either.

    6. Re:economics by quonset · · Score: 1

      dumping that much extra iron into the economy would make the "value" close to zero.

      Which would mean the cost to construct something using iron would decrease substantially thus saving money in material costs.

    7. Re:economics by TWX · · Score: 1

      We're going to have to learn how to smelt in mirogravity if it's going to be worth anything off-Earth.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    8. Re:economics by sls1j · · Score: 2

      Exactly, especially if it were all dumped at once in one glorious flaming ball.

    9. Re:economics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It does if we plan to use it *in space*.

      I'm fairly sure that the cost of hauling to the surface, refining, then hauling back up outweighs the cost of building a refinery.

      Gravity does a lot of work.

    10. Re:economics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is worth much more up there, already in the space and not stuck down here in earth's gravity well.

      That asteroid might play pivotal role in humankind's future in space.

    11. Re:economics by crimson+tsunami · · Score: 1

      Pay me a Quintillion dollars or I'll drop it to the bottom...

    12. Re:economics by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      You can't "drop" something from space, at least not without huge amounts of delta-v. And if you can afford that, you can make better threats.

    13. Re:economics by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      dumping that much extra iron into the economy would make the "value" close to zero

      No, it would sharply reduce the price.

      The value of that metal is given by what you can make from it, and that doesn't decrease (in fact, it increases).

      The decrease in price actually corresponds to the increase in wealth of society; that is, the fact that you can buy something that used to be expensive for much less money makes you wealthier. And because you're wealthier, things then seem cheaper to you.

    14. Re: economics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't actually understand metallurgy, do you?

    15. Re:economics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Easier than on earth. The best aspect of smelting in space is that when you heat something up, it stays heated up for much longer. No atmosphere, no convection, only radiation loss. The second benefit is how much easier it is to toss around tons of metal in space as compared to under the influence of gravity.

      Really the only two hard problems to solve (once all the other hard problems are solved) is how to generate enough energy and how to spin up the ore to be processed efficiently. Some artificial gravity would be nice to separate the slag more easily, but perhaps if an enterprising engineer finds a way to stop the metal from sticking to the sidewalls a spherical solution could be found.

    16. Re:economics by AvderTheTerrible · · Score: 1

      No need to dump that metal into the economy. Use that metal to expand the colony by building habitats with it in the asteroid belt. Haul some of it to mars, or Jupiter, or Saturn. It's value wouldn't be in the material itself, but the fact that its stored in a low gravity environment and easily transported to mars and the outer solar system for use in construction of initial orbital infrastructure before large scale mining of local moons can commence.

    17. Re:economics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Easier than on earth. The best aspect of smelting in space is that when you heat something up, it stays heated up for much longer. No atmosphere, no convection, only radiation loss.

      So what you are saying is, it's also harder to heat things up in space, so no easier than on Earth?

      The second benefit is how much easier it is to toss around tons of metal in space as compared to under the influence of gravity.

      Right... because loading mass into some type of rocket to be pushed around into different orbits is easier than dumping it onto a conveyor belt or truck to be hauled around under gravity.

    18. Re:economics by Kazymyr · · Score: 1

      Well nobody said you need to drop it all at once. But dropping it as one-pound pellets launched from a solar powered mass driver is not out of the reach of a potential villain.

      Or revolutionary (see The Moon is a Harsh Mistress).

      --
      I hadn't known there were so many idiots in the world until I started using the Internet -Stanislaw Lem
    19. Re:economics by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      At the top of the gravity well, on the other hand, it could be worth quite a lot, potentially.

      I see what you did there.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    20. Re:economics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      dumping that much extra iron into the economy would make the "value" close to zero.

      Given enough acceleration economy will be the least of our problems.

    21. Re:economics by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      The boiling off of impurities may also be a problem.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  4. a quintillion here, a quintillion there by turkeydance · · Score: 2

    and pretty soon, we're talking about real money.

    1. Re:a quintillion here, a quintillion there by hackwrench · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah? Well, I refuse to deal with such piddling small change, which is why many are under the mistaken impression I am poor.

    2. Re:a quintillion here, a quintillion there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      don't you mean real *cough*ahem* fiat money?

  5. Shipping and Handling by zamboni1138 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Somebody forgot about shipping and handling.

    It's all about location, location, location. You got a buyer for that $10 Quintillion USD worth of iron protoplanet located in the astroid belt? Didn't think so.

    1. Re:Shipping and Handling by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Funny

      Somebody forgot about shipping and handling.

      The dinosaurs selected "cheapest delivery method" without reading the fine-print.

    2. Re:Shipping and Handling by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      I'm sure that the NASA spacecraft that attaches some rockets to the asteroid to change its course, can also attach a parachute or two so it can land gently.

      After all, the thing is really just about 200 km diameter. Shouldn't be too hard to find a spot for that. As long as it's not in the sea (global warming is doing enough already to give us wet feet) or NIMBY as I like to keep the view I have now.

    3. Re:Shipping and Handling by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      Somebody forgot about shipping and handling

      Indeed, it could be even easier to collect some of our own iron from the core of our planet.

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    4. Re:Shipping and Handling by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      It's even easier to collect it from the surface. After all, iron is the 4th most abundant element in the Earth's crust.

    5. Re:Shipping and Handling by rgmoore · · Score: 1

      Somebody forgot about shipping and handling.

      And Economics 101. If you somehow managed to bring that much iron to the Earth, it would completely change price structures. Iron would become essentially free as a raw material, with only transportation and processing costs. People would develop all kinds of new applications for raw meteoric iron to take advantage of its low price, etc.

      --

      There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.

    6. Re:Shipping and Handling by Eloking · · Score: 1

      Somebody forgot about shipping and handling.

      It's all about location, location, location. You got a buyer for that $10 Quintillion USD worth of iron protoplanet located in the astroid belt? Didn't think so.

      Yeah, about this. Let's talk in a future "maybe" no too far away.

      I know bringing the whole asteroid into earth's orbit is out of the question, too many people will freak out about the the risk of a collision (and I'm sure the cost of such propulsion system would be insane).

      I didn't do the math, but couldn't we simply install a sort of catapult on the asteroid to send big chunk in a trajectory that'll eventually reach earth? Of course, the counter-force of these launch will "eventually" send the whole asteroid to the opposite direction, but I'm sure we'll have our share of iron when it'll start to be a problem.

      --
      Elok
    7. Re:Shipping and Handling by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      couldn't we simply install a sort of catapult on the asteroid to send big chunk in a trajectory that'll eventually reach earth?

      No, it would just sling around the Earth and stay in an elongated orbit. Or it would crash to the Earth's surface and be scattered as fine dust.

    8. Re:Shipping and Handling by Eloking · · Score: 1

      couldn't we simply install a sort of catapult on the asteroid to send big chunk in a trajectory that'll eventually reach earth?

      No, it would just sling around the Earth and stay in an elongated orbit. Or it would crash to the Earth's surface and be scattered as fine dust.

      Come on, it's not Facebook. No matter how you're planning to bring the iron here, of course you'll obviously need an efficient system to handle the atmosphere re-entry (I may be wrong, but it look to me that this will be the bigger challenge).

      And is it really possible for an big chunk of iron on solar orbit to be captured and enter in a Earth orbit without an external force? I'm curious about the math.

      --
      Elok
    9. Re:Shipping and Handling by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

      Somebody forgot about shipping and handling.

      And Economics 101. If you somehow managed to bring that much iron to the Earth, it would completely change price structures. Iron would become essentially free as a raw material, with only transportation and processing costs. People would develop all kinds of new applications for raw meteoric iron to take advantage of its low price, etc.

      I seriously doubt it. Iron is already essentially free. It's around $100/ton (4 cents a pound) How much lower does it need to go? The cost of iron goods is pretty much already 99% based on the transportation and processing. Iron is already one of the cheapest raw materials there is.

    10. Re:Shipping and Handling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they didn't forget. The entire asteroid ore is worth $12.99. The rest is shipping and handling.

    11. Re:Shipping and Handling by s.petry · · Score: 1

      And how much would that be in Space Bucks?

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    12. Re: Shipping and Handling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Iron Protoplanet would be a pretty good band name...

    13. Re:Shipping and Handling by Shane_Optima · · Score: 1

      I'm sure that the NASA spacecraft that attaches some rockets to the asteroid to change its course, can also attach a parachute or two so it can land gently.

      I'm not sure if any of that was tongue in cheek, but...

      The rockets to get it to earth would doubtless work so long as we were patient (possibly "very patient") and had something with a good specific impulse. "Landing" it safely is another matter entirely.

      I suspect there will be... issues trying to build a parachute that could slow down a 200 km wide hunk of iron. For one thing, (and this is just one tiny objection) the air at the top of the asteroid would be a bit thin even with the bottom touching the earth.

      It's actually quite tricky trying to come up with a feasible solution, even assuming a budget of trillions. Slowing it down with rockets would be completely out of the question. Slowing it down with LOTS of carefully timed nukes (hundreds or thousands) might be feasible if not for the fact that you're just going to break it up and irradiate it. Atmospheric braking is impossible given the size of the thing.

      The best I can come up with is steer it at the center of Antartica's largest landmass[1] and hope for the best. Hopefully landmass under Antartica's ice sheet could absorb enough of the energy to prevent mega tsunamis.

      But given the incredible density of the thing, it might well punch a rather large hole into the mantle of the earth. It's an order of magnitude bigger than the K-T impactor, but perhaps more importantly it's more dense. To counter that, we have the fact that's it's probably moving a lot slower than the K-T object, but freefall speed via Earth's gravity is still enough to be a bit worrisome.

      And if it a actually fully penetrates the crust... it'll *sink*, right? Sink right down into the lava? And then keep sinking, all the way to the Earth's core, displacing an obscene amount of lava that flows out of Antartica's gaping wound as if from an overfilled glass of Coke that someone has just added an ice cube to?

      This is a surprisingly complicated thought experiment.


      1. Or Australia, in a pinch.

    14. Re:Shipping and Handling by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      I suspect there will be... issues trying to build a parachute that could slow down a 200 km wide hunk of iron. For one thing, (and this is just one tiny objection) the air at the top of the asteroid would be a bit thin even with the bottom touching the earth.

      Of course, I know, I should have been clearer here. Air-based parachutes won't work. Instead you'd have to use a SOLAR parachute. You're falling towards the sun, and you just need a reverse solar sail - the one that can accelerate space craft away from the sun, can also slow it down when you go towards the sun.

      There of course will be practical issues with the whole size of the darn thing and travel times of a slowed down asteroid, but that's what the smart guys at NASA are for.

      Other solution: how about gravitationally accessed decelleration? Maybe that also works.

    15. Re:Shipping and Handling by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Just in case somebody actually thinks you're serious, consider this: At 6 km, you've already left half of the atmosphere behind. The 200 km diameter asteroid will already be completely embedded in the Earth' crust before any hypothetical parachute touched the atmosphere.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    16. Re:Shipping and Handling by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      I've got a neutron star for sale. Pick up on site, no delivery available.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    17. Re:Shipping and Handling by Shane_Optima · · Score: 1

      Err, you're still joking, right?

      I mean, ten out of ten points for thinking outside the box, but to slow down the asteroid on the short timescales involved, I think the solar sail would need to be some ridiculous size. Many, many times bigger than the Earth. You could probably use smaller solar sails to move it towards the Earth (which would take years) but that's nowhere near the same thing as providing enough pull to counterbalance most of the weight of the asteroid under Earth's gravity.

    18. Re:Shipping and Handling by cstdenis · · Score: 1

      Buy land up hill from current coastal areas then drop it in the ocean. Bonus: you get an island full of ocean front property too.

      --
      1984 was not supposed to be an instruction manual.
    19. Re:Shipping and Handling by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      Of course, I know the scale of such an operation is way too big to make it practical. Yet it's a fun thought experiment.

      The only somewhat serious way to get it to Earth I can think of (though still rather impractical, and not sure if possible at all - the amount of energy needed for the required course changes would probably be a major issue already) would be to send in on a course that would skirt one or more planets to slow it down, in a similar manner we use gravity assists to speed up spacecraft. Then slow it down to a speed that it is barely faster than the earth, letting earth's gravity catch it and smack it in the middle of the Sahara or Gobi deserts.

    20. Re:Shipping and Handling by Shane_Optima · · Score: 1

      That doesn't get you below freefall-from-the-edge-of-the-gravity-well speeds which, according to Randal Munroe, is 10 kilometers per second. (Remember, everything accelerates at the same rate in a gravity well regardless of mass.) Note the destructive effects he claims would happen, then notice how much smaller (and less dense) Denali is compared to the asteroid in question.

      There might be a chance that it wouldn't be as bad if it penetrated the Earth's crust, thus allowing for a more gradual deceleration as it displaced lava (like a bullet decelerating under water), but that displaced lava would be dramatic and I'm not sure what the tectonic and volcanic implications would be.

      (XKCD is such a bad influence. I'm sure the gravity equations are easy enough to find and use, but then I remembered this.)

    21. Re:Shipping and Handling by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      Darn. Back to the drawing board it is!

      And for all the nonsense xkdc produces, I do have the feeling they'll get their numbers right. That's the least one can expect form a bunch of nerds :)

    22. Re:Shipping and Handling by grumpyman · · Score: 1

      I also happened to have a very large fusion source available for rent, btw it's much closer than the asteroid belt...

    23. Re:Shipping and Handling by DarthVain · · Score: 1

      Also that much Iron on the market would crash it and make Iron practically worthless I'd imagine.

  6. Not as large as Mars by phantom_programmer · · Score: 1

    > an asteroid potentially as large as Mars

    Note that the USA Today article actually says "NASA wants to know whether the asteroid ... could be part of what was an earlier planet perhaps as large as Mars". The asteroid itself it nowhere nears as large as Mars (about 2800x smaller by mass).

    1. Re:Not as large as Mars by SergeyKurdakov6434 · · Score: 1

      it was really funny to see that.

      'News for nerds' no more

      but there is a hint in submitter nickname, possibly he is just 10 years old

    2. Re:NOT as large as mars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mars is 600000km in diameter?

  7. Looking For More Funding by soaro77 · · Score: 0

    Those NASA guys are just always looking for more funding

  8. Re: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you put a flag on it, it is finders-keepers.

  9. Creative fundraising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The only way you're getting a quadrillion dollars is by setting that thing on a collision course and holding the entire planet for ransom.

  10. Use in space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The more common metals would probably not be shipped to Earth. It would make sense to use them for heavy manufacturing in space, or on Mars. If you keep the common metals in space, you don't need to lift them from Earth to space at great expense.
    The rare stuff might be worth shipping to Earth. Unless they start manufacturing everything (including electronics) in space and then drop the final products to Earth.

  11. NOT as large as mars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I have no idea where the "potentially as large as Mars" came from - this is estimated as approx. 200km in diameter. Mars is over 3000 times as large.

    The 200km estimate is even in the original article.

  12. This asteroid isn't for us by Visarga · · Score: 1

    It's raw materials for future space expansion, when we will bootstrap a space economy.

  13. Failure to understand the market... by gweihir · · Score: 1

    If that much iron and nickel becomes available cheaply, prices will drop extremely. The only way they will not, is if the cost is in the extraction. For an example, see Aluminum, which is very much non-rare, but getting it into an usable form costs a lot. So if every ton of this iron costs $1'000'000 to extract, its value is negative as market-prices are a lot lower. Basically the only value this iron has for the foreseeable future is that it does not need to be lifted out of a gravity well.

    Morale: People with no understanding of capitalism and markets should not make such estimates.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  14. Not as large as mars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "NASA wants to know whether the asteroid, thought to be made of iron and nickel, could be part of what was an earlier planet perhaps as large as Mars."
    The asteroid is not as large as Mars...

  15. Plenty of water, so there is fuel by perpenso · · Score: 2

    I wonder how you're supposed to smelt it in space. Perhaps space air is flammable?

    The space water is flammable after electrolysis. :-)

  16. Diamond are essentially worthless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    /off topic : De beers has a massive oversupply which they simply storage rather than sell and have diamond sold at their real price : nearly worthless. The value of the diamond is not really set by the market, due to the quasi monopoly. Otherwise it would be set by artificial diamond which , when properly maid , are not differential to naked eye to natural diamond. And that price is 1/100 of the natural diamond price, probably less if we started mass produce them.

  17. Re: Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, but he will grab you by your pussy and throw you out back to you stupid smelly india.

  18. Re: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If we can name it after Trump, does it matter?

  19. Great news! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Great news! At last, slashdot enlarge your psyche.

    Mars Mean radius: 3,389.5±0.2 km
    Psyche: 253.2 ± 4 km

  20. Darned headlines by codeButcher · · Score: 1

    Here I thought for a moment the mission was worth (or: would cost) 10 quintillion (18 zeroes if using short scale) dollars.

    And now that the fourth Zimbabwean dollar has been demonetized, one can't even use that pun any more (from the WP article: "The Zimbabwean government stated that it would credit 5 US dollars to domestic bank accounts with balances of up to 175 quadrillion Zimbabwean dollars and exchange Zimbabwean dollars for US dollars at a rate of 1 USD to 35 quadrillion Zimbabwean dollars to accounts with balances above 175 quadrillion Zimbabwean dollars."

    --
    Free, as in your money being freed from the confines of your account.
  21. Some glossed-over points by codeButcher · · Score: 2
    Reading the linked Wikipedia article, it seems that:
    * "in 2014 a mission to Psyche was proposed to NASA"
    * "A team led by Lindy Elkins-Tanton ... presented a concept for a robotic Psyche orbiter. This team argued that 16 Psyche would be a valuable object for study because it is the only metallic core-like body discovered so far." They don't seem to be worried so much about the monetary value as about the knowledge value.
    * "The mission was approved by NASA on January 4, 2017 and is targeted to launch in October of 2023, arriving at the asteroid in 2030, following an Earth gravity assist spacecraft maneuver in 2024 and a Mars flyby in 2025." So mebe I'll get to watch the progress in my retirement.

    The Globalnews and Usatoday articles strike me as being tarted up (read: dumbed down) with that gee whizz number of dollars.

    --
    Free, as in your money being freed from the confines of your account.
    1. Re:Some glossed-over points by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh shit. What if the asteroid belt was the location of the last planet in the solar system to develop massively destructive weapons.

    2. Re:Some glossed-over points by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Trump's America only profitable NASA missions will be funded so they have to make it look good.

  22. Psyche by Cyphase · · Score: 2

    Person A: NASA is planning a mission to an asteroid worth $10 quintillion!
    Person B: What? No way! That doesn't even make sense.
    Person A: Seriously! I saw it on Slashdot!
    Person B: I don't believe you. Which asteroid is it, wise guy?
    Person A: Psyche!

    --
    by Cyphase ( 907627 )
  23. USA Today: "close to $60 trillion dollars" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why, that's almost 7,746,000 dollars squared !

  24. No, not potentially as large as Mars by Phil+Karn · · Score: 1

    The largest estimate for the size of Psyche is 253 km across. Mars is about 6800 km in diameter, enormously larger.

    1. Re: No, not potentially as large as Mars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yet you're too stupid to notice the "part of" in the sentence you read.

    2. Re: No, not potentially as large as Mars by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 1

      Yet you're too stupid to notice the "part of" in the sentence you read.

      WTF are you talking about. Are you seeing the invisible words again?

      --
      Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
  25. Mass & kinetic Energy - Extinction by burni2 · · Score: 1

    Ok, people pointed out the complete bullshit number about the actual - inflation corrected worth.

    But there is another vector that needs to be taken into consideration, that has a devastating effect on bigger space mining undertakings.

    To make it short if done on a big scale space mining could change the earths orbit and rotation period.

    And this is what most fly-highs do not take into consideration.

    1.) every planetary body in our solar system is there and "does" that because it has a mass, and a certain kinetic energy

    a.) also mass distribution plays a role (moon tide = earth has changing mass distribution, "wobble, wobble")

    2.) .. and interacts with other bodies through the "mystic and largely unkown" force of gravitation - its so unkown many people just jump and do other silly things and consider to survive ..

    3.) these properties make the planetary bodies move in such elliptecal shapes as they do.

    From 3.) change them by mass and the momentum/energy that is "glued" to the mass, you change how the planetary bodies will behave.

    Yes, this happens contiously. Earth is loosing as well as gaining mass - naturally. Helium can escape the atmosphere, but meteors are hitting the earth, transfering mass and energy.

    And the Apollo missions transfered mass to the moon.

    The key point is the scale you'd do that and when thinking in "deathstar" categories you can predict a big change.

    If you can't imaging it, go ice skating and do a pierotte and pull your arms to your body.

    What in consequence might happen I can only guess , however I know something will happen.

    Because you change the system on a big scale. .. our planets relative distance to the sun has considerable effect on our climate. .. the day/night cycle has considerable effect on our life.

    I call this the real "masseffect"

    1. Re:Mass & kinetic Energy - Extinction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What in consequence might happen I can only guess , however I know something will happen.

      no offense intended, but you know jack shit.

    2. Re:Mass & kinetic Energy - Extinction by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Do you have any idea how much mass would have to be transferred to Earth before this effect even becomes measurable on the homeopathic scale?

  26. There's a lot more iron much closer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is a lot more iron than that much closer... right here, just a few thousand klicks under our feet in the earth's core.

    1. Re:There's a lot more iron much closer... by hey! · · Score: 4, Informative

      And there's some twenty million tons of gold dissolved in the Earth's oceans. Jules Verne made it the source of Captain Nemo's incredible wealth.

      To put twenty million tons of gold in perspective, all the gold that has ever been mined by humans totals up to about 180 thousand tons. To put in another perspective: sure, it's gold, but at a concentration of thirteen billionths of a gram per liter of seawater it's worthless unless you have unlimited time and energy to extract it.

      That's the problem with asteroid mining in general. Until the cost of changing an object's momentum goes down drastically it's not worth doing. If Pysche were a 1000 kg block of pure, refined platinum (market price: $34 million) you'd be hard-pressed to retrieve it and return it to Earth at a profit. Which is not to say asteroid mining is a bad idea; but first things first: you've got to reduce the price of interplanetary propulsion by a couple orders of magnitudes. One thing that never happens in a sci-fi asteroid mining scenario is the hero worrying about running out of gas. Propulsion in stories is always practically limitless and free of charge. Real propulsion will never be that good, but it could get good enough.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    2. Re:There's a lot more iron much closer... by DarthVain · · Score: 1

      You say that, however rare earth mining is problematic for much the same reason (if not the same scale).

      You just wait until Space Trump comes and boils off our oceans looking for weapons of mass destruction, and pays himself in 20 million in gold for his trouble.

  27. -_- by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I seriously hope no one believes they can bring any of it back. There's plenty of asteroids with useful metals and planets with them too. It would cost soooooo much more to bring any of it back and having it crash to earth would be a really dumb option.

  28. That's no moon... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ever wonder where you get the materials for a Death Star (or a Dyson Sphere)?

    Problem solved!

    1. Re:That's no moon... by TWX · · Score: 1

      It would take a lot more material than that for a Dyson Sphere. It would take far more material than we have in the entire Solar System.

      If you compare to the fictional Ringworld in Larry Niven's N-space universe, a strip that's 1,600,000 km wide, fans have estimated the mass to be the mass of Jupiter, which is just over 2/3 of the mass of the Solar System sans the Sun itself, without respect for composition of the Solar System.

      To look at something more practical, in David Weber's Honor Harrington universe, a superdreadnought starship weighs a little under 9,000,000 metric tons. If the entire mass of 16 Psyche is usable then one could build over two trillion of those fictional starships, asteroids like that would make for a sound basis as natural resources for a space-based economy, assuming that one could manage to perform the materials refining needed without landing the mined ore on a planet's surface.

      Your Deathstar example would probably also work.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  29. Re: by TWX · · Score: 1

    I claim this planet in the name of Mars! Isn't that lovely?

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  30. Re: How much is PUTIN getting? by umghhh · · Score: 0

    In my experience knowledge economy is mostly based on ignorance. It has to be of course as without ignorance we cannot sell knowledge. That is not what I mean however. I mean that ever since this knowledge based economy thing is showing in media I also see more and more ignorance especially among knowledge based economy workers and MBA drones that work in the area. OC I do not expect these people to know enough to take part in a discussion on why Roman Empire fell for instance. What I do expect is that they can have some idea about consequences of their actions. Usually they do not. Their knowledge does not reach that far.

  31. of course by sacrilicious · · Score: 1

    Elkins-Tanton calculates that the iron in 16 Psyche would be worth $10,000 quadrillion ($10 quintillion).

    Yes, the ten pounds of iron they'll be able to transport back will cost that because of the enormous cost of the space mission to retrieve it. But it will be worth it because of the awful iron shortage we're suffering through.

    --
    - First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
  32. If your calculation is correct... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If your calculation is correct, it would mean a solid ball with a radius of 159km, which is quite larger than the 100km radius of the actual asteroid.

    1. Re:If your calculation is correct... by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 1

      If your calculation is correct, it would mean a solid ball with a radius of 159km, which is quite larger than the 100km radius of the actual asteroid.

      Good catch. Based on that, it sounds like I'm off by a significant factor. I was extrapolating based on the given monetary value alone, and there were quite a few zeroes in those numbers. I may have misplaced one or two of them. It's still fun even if we can only build ten Death Stars.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
  33. Outsource this mission to JAXA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    JAXA has already completed an asteroid mission, Hayabusa, and a second one, Hayabusa 2, is currently in progress. Just hire JAXA to build another probe, and use their crews. The USA and Japan can work out a deal to have JAXA buy space on some other NASA mission.

  34. John Elway on Trevor Siemian by raymorris · · Score: 1

    That reminds me of John Elway on Trevor Siemian. Siemian was the last quarterback drafted that year. He had already lined up a job in real estate because he figured he might not be drafted - he wasn't that good. Fans were surprised and a bit dismayed when Elway drafted him for the Broncos, who were a powerful team -they won the Superbowl that year. Elway said Siemian "has potential".

    It turns out that in his first year as a starter Siemian had a an 18-10 touchdown-to-interception ratio and an 84.6 passer rating, both stats better than Peyton Manning and Brock Osweiler in the previous Superbowl-winning season.

    Elway later reminded one fan who had been dismayed by the Siemian pick that Elway does indeed know how to spot potential:

    http://www.si.com/extra-mustar...

  35. Crash it into Mars! by bgarcia · · Score: 1

    Mars would get instant global warming, and all the iron they need to establish an industry. You'd probably just have to wait several thousand years for the planet to turn solid enough again before sending people.

    --
    I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.
    1. Re:Crash it into Mars! by modmans2ndcoming · · Score: 1

      And perhaps a magnetic field! :-)

  36. numbers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For cash sums like this, can we please retire billions and quintillions and use SI units now they are more common? Like this would be 10 Exa-dollars, right ? It's too confusing having two naming conventions.

  37. Quintillion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh yeah? I found an asteroid worth a Kabilliinzillion dollars.

  38. it's a great location by ooloorie · · Score: 1

    It's all about location, location, location. You got a buyer for that $10 Quintillion USD worth of iron protoplanet located in the astroid belt? Didn't think so.

    Actually, large amounts of metal outside a gravity well is extremely valuable for space exploration, since launch costs right now are thousands of dollars per pound.

    Furthermore, once outside a gravity well, it's fairly cheap to move stuff around. If we start mining asteroids for metal, we can move that metal back to earth orbit at almost no cost. We could even deorbit it, although that would really be a waste.

    1. Re:it's a great location by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      Actually, large amounts of metal outside a gravity well is extremely valuable for space exploration, since launch costs right now are thousands of dollars per pound.

      Not really, because we don't have an industry outside the gravity well to turn raw iron into useful products like microchips, microwave transmitters, high precision optics, solar panels, rocket fuel, or many of the other things we need. The total cost of building and launching this industry in space would be much more than all the probes we'd want to use for space exploration.

    2. Re:it's a great location by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      Not really, because we don't have an industry outside the gravity well to turn raw iron into useful products like microchips, microwave transmitters, high precision optics, solar panels, rocket fuel, or many of the other things we need.

      The asteroid metal would be mostly structural: you could build solid, large scale orbital structures out of it; mass for structural components is probably the biggest obstacle for moving into space. The other technology you mention is quite lightweight.

      The total cost of building and launching this industry in space would be much more than all the probes we'd want to use for space exploration.

      You're thinking like a government central planner. In any case, no that's not true, and I expect this kind of industry to take off within 50 years, and largely without government support.

  39. No value in the minerals ... by PPH · · Score: 1

    ... lots in the science.

    Right now, we don't have a very good idea of the exact composition of Earth's core. If this asteroid is a chunk of planetary core, a few tests and samples could tel us quite a lot about how our own planet works. This includes data related to planetary magnetic field generation, radioactive decay heat production, etc. This sort of data can tell us a lot about things like why Mars is dead while the Earth supports life. And we can extend this knowledge to assist in the search for life-supporting planets elsewhere.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  40. Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is Putin's bottom. Discuss ..

  41. Re: How much is PUTIN getting? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I honestly don't get the hate for MBAs. I went to a top-10 MBA school and landed a job that pays me $300k a year and in which I do truly impactful work, and few people would be as qualified to do it.

  42. Re: How much is PUTIN getting? by Godwin+O'Hitler · · Score: 1

    I'm sure your impactful work benefits mankind no end.

    --
    No, your children are not the special ones. Nor are your pets.
  43. Re: How much is PUTIN getting? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did they teach you how to sell your mother to the highest bidder, and replace american workers with useless monkeys? You ass.

  44. did you just mash on the keyboard? by modmans2ndcoming · · Score: 1

    Literally nothing you said in the summary is true.

    It is almost 1% the mass of the asteroid belt, not nearly the size of mars

    It is believed to be the exposed iron core of a proto-planet.

  45. Re: How much is PUTIN getting? by Chas · · Score: 1

    I'm sure your impactful work benefits mankind no end.

    His work helps get (and keeps) people employed. Putting food on the table for an unknown number of people and their families.

    So, at least in the short term, their work is more important than some jackass screaming "Global Warming! Global Warming!" while jumping up and down with their hair on fire and hoping someone will give them a grant so THEY can put food on the table.

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  46. Re: How much is PUTIN getting? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thanks to eight years of Obama, the only skill set in demand is for gender reassignment surgeons.

  47. Unsatisfied demand by Guppy · · Score: 1

    The $10 Quadrillion figure is total baloney. You can't just take the current value and extrapolate, because the price would fall as the supply rises. A one carat diamond may be worth $10,000, but if there were suddenly a trillion of them, they would be worth next to nothing, and people would use them as gravel in their driveways.

    The $10 Quadrillion figure is also a pretty good signal that the current market is unable to respond adequately to meet demand, no? Let somebody satiate that unsatisfied demand, and see what humanity does with it. Certainly that will mean the collapse and disappearance of some current mining industries, but it could also mean the emergence of completely unexpected industries on the demand side of things.

    1. Re:Unsatisfied demand by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

      Besides this being a figurative trillion. Given a high supply, I would like to use them as fuel :)

  48. Re: How much is PUTIN getting? by dougdonovan · · Score: 0

    forget the billionaires try jason rothschild and son nathan

  49. double check those facts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sciencedaily has reported that this mission is capped at $450M USD.

  50. Re: How much is PUTIN getting? by Chas · · Score: 1

    Why, exactly, are you exhibiting faulty thinking?

    One must not necessarily "win" at the expense of the other...

    It takes all kinds man. And tunnel vision like yours helps nothing and nobody.

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  51. Jim Benson & SpaceDev by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jim Benson (RIP) made this exact claim 20+ years ago when he founded SpaceDev.

    Here's a 1997 analysis:

    http://wc.arizona.edu/papers/91/22/01_2_m.html

    I'm hopeful it will finally come to pass.

  52. If mining companies were movie companies... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Every year these asteroids are left unmined would be marked down as 10 septillion dollars *stolen* from them by the evil space pirates at NASA.

  53. Number was put in for the new president by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The value of the asteroid was put in for the president, I assume. He is only interested in Good Deals , not so much in scientific knowledge (or any truths in general).

  54. Klingons tried that by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    Didn't work out so well for them.

  55. Klendathu by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    Or maybe that is our strategic reserve if we need to fling an iron bullet at some distant world for some reason...

    Though funny retort from advanced civ: "Hai guys, thx for all the iron, k thx bai! :) ;) ;P"