It would be smarter to control the population growth and the amount of energy required. You have to do that anyway. You can't keep feeding an exponentially growing population forever. So, if you stop the growth at a sustainable point, there's no need to get stuff from space.
As Musk argues, launch cost are high because our rockets are not reusable. The fuel is only a small part of the overall cost. So, instead of trying to get stuff from the moon, it would make much more sense to develop reusable rockets, like SpaceX is doing.
No, synthesizing would be a positive net energy procedure. You can irrradiate lithium-6, to make tritium. Store the tritium, and it would decay into He-3.
But the stuff we want to put in Earth orbit is typically very high tech. How do you get from raw ore to microchips, solar panels, and high grade optics, without bringing it down to Earth surface first ? A microchip factory on Earth already costs billions of dollars, so the idea that anybody could afford to build one on the moon is just ludicrous.
What's the goal of large-scale construction in space though ? Wouldn't it be smarter to wait until there's actually a market for the stuff you'd want to mine before going to the moon to get it ?
it's a lot easier to get stuff back into the gravity well than it is to go the other way
That depends on the circumstances. It easier on Earth because it has a nice atmosphere that allows aerobraking. Not so easy on Mars or the Moon. Also landing on Earth becomes more difficult as the mass increases.
Concentration of He-3 on the moon is in the low ppb range. That means you'd have to process billions of tons of regolith to obtain the 25 tons of He-3.
In the 90's the message was tight, and if facts were uncovered that contradicted the message then the whole team changed messages at the same time. They need to step up their game....
No need for that anymore. People have learned to accept the message no matter what.
We used to have a successful, efficient ice harvesting industry with water ice here on Earth.
We had existing transportation infrastructure. There are no roads or train tracks on Mars, and no open water where ships can travel. It will take a huge amount of resources to build all of that.
It's a lot easier than shipping all the materials you need to build solar panels from Earth to Mars in sufficient quantities to power a significant colony.
No, you'd start by sending finished solar panels, and/or nuclear reactors, of course. You can't do anything else until you have plenty of energy.
We (anyone on Earth) don't have anything that will lift a submarine reactor to LEO. To the best of my knowledge, nothing like that has even been designed.
That's why the whole idea of setting up a Mars colony is fantasy.
Assuming the heat comes from something like a nuclear power plant, obtaining sufficient water to drive a turbine is a simple problem compared to building the plant in the first place. And fluids are easier to work with than solids.
A transport infrastructure to move dry ice from the polar regions to the equator is going to cost even more, and the efficiency will be low due to transport losses.
Slashdot Mirror
It would be smarter to control the population growth and the amount of energy required. You have to do that anyway. You can't keep feeding an exponentially growing population forever. So, if you stop the growth at a sustainable point, there's no need to get stuff from space.
At least you can reuse the first stage, which is the biggest and most expensive one.
Here's a nice presentation of what it means to make state of the art integrated circuits.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
As Musk argues, launch cost are high because our rockets are not reusable. The fuel is only a small part of the overall cost. So, instead of trying to get stuff from the moon, it would make much more sense to develop reusable rockets, like SpaceX is doing.
Imagine being able to print an open source clone of a current gen processor or memory.
Extremely unlikely to happen. Current gen chip technology is so advanced that it requires extremely expensive equipment. Think billions of dollars.
It's talking about tapping into its considerable resources. That's mining, isn't it ?
I don't have much control over public funds, but I would prefer as much as possible is diverted to my personal interests, of course.
Fuck off, some of us have dreams.
As long as these dreams are paid with private funds, go right ahead.
Note, of course, that none of this is relevant unless we decide to get seriously into space again.
Which isn't very likely. There's not much to do in space.
Expanding our knowledge.
Most of the cost of using titanium is actually processing the material into the desired shape. It's a total bitch to work with.
No, synthesizing would be a positive net energy procedure. You can irrradiate lithium-6, to make tritium. Store the tritium, and it would decay into He-3.
But the stuff we want to put in Earth orbit is typically very high tech. How do you get from raw ore to microchips, solar panels, and high grade optics, without bringing it down to Earth surface first ? A microchip factory on Earth already costs billions of dollars, so the idea that anybody could afford to build one on the moon is just ludicrous.
What's the goal of large-scale construction in space though ? Wouldn't it be smarter to wait until there's actually a market for the stuff you'd want to mine before going to the moon to get it ?
it's a lot easier to get stuff back into the gravity well than it is to go the other way
That depends on the circumstances. It easier on Earth because it has a nice atmosphere that allows aerobraking. Not so easy on Mars or the Moon. Also landing on Earth becomes more difficult as the mass increases.
Concentration of He-3 on the moon is in the low ppb range. That means you'd have to process billions of tons of regolith to obtain the 25 tons of He-3.
We have no use for He-3 in the foreseeable future, though. And if we really need it, we can synthesize it.
Since everything we mine gets processed and used here on Earth, what would be the point of getting it off the surface ?
In the 90's the message was tight, and if facts were uncovered that contradicted the message then the whole team changed messages at the same time. They need to step up their game....
No need for that anymore. People have learned to accept the message no matter what.
Actually making hardware is a fairly straightforward, albeit costly, proposition
And if it involves any custom ASICs, it's a very costly proposition.
Physical security is still an important aspect of overall security.
We used to have a successful, efficient ice harvesting industry with water ice here on Earth.
We had existing transportation infrastructure. There are no roads or train tracks on Mars, and no open water where ships can travel. It will take a huge amount of resources to build all of that.
It's a lot easier than shipping all the materials you need to build solar panels from Earth to Mars in sufficient quantities to power a significant colony.
No, you'd start by sending finished solar panels, and/or nuclear reactors, of course. You can't do anything else until you have plenty of energy.
We (anyone on Earth) don't have anything that will lift a submarine reactor to LEO. To the best of my knowledge, nothing like that has even been designed.
That's why the whole idea of setting up a Mars colony is fantasy.
Water is heavy and mars doesn't have any
Assuming the heat comes from something like a nuclear power plant, obtaining sufficient water to drive a turbine is a simple problem compared to building the plant in the first place. And fluids are easier to work with than solids.
A transport infrastructure to move dry ice from the polar regions to the equator is going to cost even more, and the efficiency will be low due to transport losses.