Don't forget that we don't have a need for raw bulk materials in orbit. We want a functional weather satellite for instance. How much would it cost to mine raw asteroid material, carve it into a functional weather satellite, and adjust delta-V to bring it in a Low Earth Orbit ?
They were the ones that did it, using just the tools they made themselves. A little different than for instance the Apollo project that took a big chunk from an entire nation to put a few men on the moon. And that was easy, because they didn't attempt to stay there and try to live off the land.
Correct. But I didn't feel like doing an hour's worth of research for the most accurate number. The Rosetta mission cost EUR 1 billion, and it only managed a one-way 10 year journey of a 100 kg payload on a comet. A mining mission needs to be round-trip, and would easily involve 100 tons of equipment. Cost would run in trillions of dollars easily. Even if you include all platinum group materials, it wouldn't be worth it.
Based on existing supercharger and battery technology, yes. But it would be foolish to assume that this is the best we can get. As far as supplying the necessary power, there's no problem. All we need is a better battery.
For starters, we can walk around outside, and find stuff that we can eat and drink just using our bare hands. So, if technology breaks down completely, humans will still be able to survive. That's a little different than anywhere else in the solar system, right ?
Multiplying on Earth can only continue for so long.
Even if all of Mars was habitable, it would only add one quarter additional Earth surface. But it isn't. And the rest of the solar system is even less hospitable than Mars.
And every attempt to mine stuff here on Earth, conducted by the brightest minds will eventually lead to the new ideas and technologies needed to successfully mine stuff here on Earth, which is most likely much more cost effective and useful.
Of course, water and plutonium are only useful in space if there's a profitable application for them that outweighs all the overhead of mining and refining the stuff.
The global platinum market is only $10 billion/year, which is not a lot of money to fund an asteroid mining mission, and to safely land the platinum ore on the ground.
Math won't help you very much. Once you hit the atmosphere, you lose altitude quickly. This means that you also need to get rid of a lot of kinetic energy very quickly, which makes things very hot.
Those are just the average concentrations. On Earth, we can do much better by closely looking around for areas with much higher concentrations. And because the Earth is much more geologically active, has flowing water, and biological processes, it is more likely to find rich areas on Earth than on the Moon.
It doesn't have to be "no pollution". It just has be low enough that it's not causing damage, or low enough that you can clean it up.
What exactly is unrealistic about an autonomous robot on an asteroid
Not just a "robot". Autonomous mining and refining equipment, plus all the infrastructure to build more. For instance, I assume your robot contains a CPU. That means you need a IC factory in space, plus a factory to build IC factories. Plus factories for all the materials you need. Basically, we're talking about launching a small to medium city. Now, how much rockets and fuel does that require ? How is that "no pollution" ?
That's what they told Columbus. LOL. But seriously, mining with low pollution on Earth is much more realistic than an autonomous robotic mine on an asteroid.
I don't really see battery swapping as a viable technology. To get optimal performance, manufacturers will want to make the battery an integral part of the car. Having a removable battery introduces too many engineering comprises. Also, it requires a standard form factor and capacity, which gets in the way of fast innovation.
Tesla battery pack is 85kWh, will charge in 10.5 minutes with 500 kW, and has 270 mile range. You forgot to take into account the poor efficiency of ICE compared to electric motors. Even so, make it 1000 kW by using 70A and 14kV. Not a big deal.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't forget that we don't have a need for raw bulk materials in orbit. We want a functional weather satellite for instance. How much would it cost to mine raw asteroid material, carve it into a functional weather satellite, and adjust delta-V to bring it in a Low Earth Orbit ?
Primitive humans would probably disagree.
They were the ones that did it, using just the tools they made themselves. A little different than for instance the Apollo project that took a big chunk from an entire nation to put a few men on the moon. And that was easy, because they didn't attempt to stay there and try to live off the land.
We'll just kill each other in space. Why do you think human nature would change as soon as they lift off the surface ?
Correct. But I didn't feel like doing an hour's worth of research for the most accurate number. The Rosetta mission cost EUR 1 billion, and it only managed a one-way 10 year journey of a 100 kg payload on a comet. A mining mission needs to be round-trip, and would easily involve 100 tons of equipment. Cost would run in trillions of dollars easily. Even if you include all platinum group materials, it wouldn't be worth it.
Based on existing supercharger and battery technology, yes. But it would be foolish to assume that this is the best we can get. As far as supplying the necessary power, there's no problem. All we need is a better battery.
Agreed, faster charging means that we need better battery (or supercapacitor) technology.
Exactly. There are no people in space, nor is there much use for them. So the water isn't very valuable either.
The same argument could have been used for staying in Africa.
Poor analogy. It didn't take much resources to leave Africa, and survive outside of it.
How is this any different than being on Earth?
For starters, we can walk around outside, and find stuff that we can eat and drink just using our bare hands. So, if technology breaks down completely, humans will still be able to survive. That's a little different than anywhere else in the solar system, right ?
Multiplying on Earth can only continue for so long.
Even if all of Mars was habitable, it would only add one quarter additional Earth surface. But it isn't. And the rest of the solar system is even less hospitable than Mars.
And every attempt to mine stuff here on Earth, conducted by the brightest minds will eventually lead to the new ideas and technologies needed to successfully mine stuff here on Earth, which is most likely much more cost effective and useful.
Water in a desert is priceless only for people who want to go traipsing in the desert.
Of course, water and plutonium are only useful in space if there's a profitable application for them that outweighs all the overhead of mining and refining the stuff.
How do you get it slow enough ? LEO means it's going Mach 25.
The global platinum market is only $10 billion/year, which is not a lot of money to fund an asteroid mining mission, and to safely land the platinum ore on the ground.
Math won't help you very much. Once you hit the atmosphere, you lose altitude quickly. This means that you also need to get rid of a lot of kinetic energy very quickly, which makes things very hot.
Those are just the average concentrations. On Earth, we can do much better by closely looking around for areas with much higher concentrations. And because the Earth is much more geologically active, has flowing water, and biological processes, it is more likely to find rich areas on Earth than on the Moon.
With asteroids you can use minimal thrust and exploit orbital dynamics to hit earth's atmosphere and fall in.
Where the stuff will burn up and/or crash uncontrollably ?
What exactly is unrealistic about an autonomous robot on an asteroid
Not just a "robot". Autonomous mining and refining equipment, plus all the infrastructure to build more. For instance, I assume your robot contains a CPU. That means you need a IC factory in space, plus a factory to build IC factories. Plus factories for all the materials you need. Basically, we're talking about launching a small to medium city. Now, how much rockets and fuel does that require ? How is that "no pollution" ?
Why ? You suffer huge cost, just to end up in a covered dome on some barren rock where you will be one mechanical failure away from death.
What you're proposing can't be done.
That's what they told Columbus. LOL. But seriously, mining with low pollution on Earth is much more realistic than an autonomous robotic mine on an asteroid.
I don't really see battery swapping as a viable technology. To get optimal performance, manufacturers will want to make the battery an integral part of the car. Having a removable battery introduces too many engineering comprises. Also, it requires a standard form factor and capacity, which gets in the way of fast innovation.
we're going to see steadily increasing local use of space resources, such as habitats and solar arrays on the Moon made from lunar materials.
Why spend astronomical amounts of money to build habitats on the Moon ?
Figuring out how to robotically mine, refine, and construct machines serves no useful purpose?
It serves no useful purpose to do all of that in space given the insanely high cost.
How about getting all those polluting industries off earth?
How about figuring out how to mine stuff without pollution ?
Tesla battery pack is 85kWh, will charge in 10.5 minutes with 500 kW, and has 270 mile range. You forgot to take into account the poor efficiency of ICE compared to electric motors. Even so, make it 1000 kW by using 70A and 14kV. Not a big deal.
Without a useful primary purpose of all this "neat space-based stuff", it's a circular argument.