Asteroid Mining; Is it necessary?

[CaptainKipard]

Economic growth does not rely on population growth btw. The richest countries in the world all have the lowest rates of population growth.

Are you saying that economic growth doesn't rely on population growth BECAUSE there are some populous poor countries? Because that doesn't logically follow.

Economic growth requires money. (at least in the west)

Money is being created when loans are taken out.

Loans are taken out by people.

Therefore economic growth requires population growth.

This isn't a revolutionary idea either. Every die-hard capitalist knows this.

Money is made of thin air. It's an idea, not a real object. We attribute value to things for entirely arbitrary reasons sometimes. It's about attitudes, emotions and even fashions as much as any kind of intrinsic value.

What point is this supposed to make?

This kind of desperation for squeezing every last buck out of something, has a way of leading to destructive practices.

I remember when capitalism was something to strive for. In recent years it has become a rather dirty word.

Edited March 30, 2014 by Cpt. Kipard

[Seret]

we need the basic materials before we even think about doing more complex production.

Yep, the problem is that space exploration is a necessarily high-tech activity. That means an enormous and complex supply chain behind every nut, bolt and washer. For any kind of foreseeable future Earth will be supplying the vast bulk of the equipment. What we would be able to build in space will be very rudimentary. Shelters out of regolith bricks is probably about the kind of tech level we should be thinking.

We'll get there evetually though. It's essentially a bootstrapping problem.

Vger, while I don't disagree I think your line of discussion is heading OT, and probably in a direction that would get us pounded with the lockhammer.

[CaptainKipard]

...probably in a direction that would get us pounded with the lockhammer.

Seriously? I thought economics was a science. *cough*

[Seret]

Are you saying that economic growth doesn't rely on population growth BECAUSE there are some populous poor countries?

Er, no. Not at all. You're right, that wouldn't follow logically. However, as I said to Vger I think this is going OT. If you want to continue to discuss it we'd be better off in another thread, and it would be very difficult to stop some idiot from bringing politics into it.

[RuBisCO]

Right, I see you're equating economic growth with energy demand growth in a strictly linear fashion. That's not an entirely unreasonable simplification, but it turns out that reality is a bit less straightforward. As I mentioned back in my original reply to you energy use does decouple somewhat from economic growth in industrialised economies.

"Somewhat" is the operative word there, image we could be 10 times as efficient, about 5 MW/hr per person per year (compared to ~50 MW/hr for a high standard of living today), about the same energy usage today as in the poorest countries, but with a high standard of living instead, well then we would gain 78 years on all those predictions because every 78 years our economy would grow ten fold. There is no way we could become that efficient, so fat chance on even a 3/4 a centuries reprieve. No we must stagnate there is no way around it all your gleaning to do is gain time, but you can't stop the inevitable.

Population growth is slowing, energy is getting more expensive, easy resources are depleted or depleting leaving the more expensive more energy intensive ores for processing and finally even if we were to be able to keep growing we would hit ridiculously impossible levels of energy consumption in the next 300 years, let alone astronomical unfathomable levels by the next millennium that not even a Dyson sphere could quench!

First world countries growth rates have already slowed, cycles of growth and recession are negating each other, some first world countries have negative population growth. Then there is the problem that this slow down is not universal, the banks keep making money out of thin air betting on future growth and growth of third world countries that will eventually slow down (as some like china are already), then there is the problem that certain technologies has not slowed down either, that automation keeps making the production more efficient. In the old days automation was a godsend, we automated the farms for once representing 70% of the work force, much of that even slave or peasant labor to now less then 2% achieving hundreds of times the food production per laborer, all those laborers moved to better jobs in the factory, able to make lots of products for cheap that they could buy, the economy growed by leaps and bounds and everyone benefited, but then industrial jobs gave way to yet to more automation or worse outsourcing to cheaper laborers, which is now also giving away to automation! We went from ~40% industry jobs in the USA at its peak to now 9% and falling, now 80% of jobs are service sector, with cashier and truck driver the most popular jobs in the nation, and the only new job in the top thirty jobs to appear in the last 70 years being computer technician at 0.5% of the population. Some think new jobs will come, that we can train people for high skilled labor, but without massive increases in demand to pay the pay checks for all these high skilled Jobs there will be no such jobs, and demand will eventually stop increasing after population has stop growing, and worse if fewer and fewer people have the money to pay for such labor. Kenyes and asimov, many future speculators thought we would all live in abundance that all this automation would translate in very few worker hours and luxury for all, but as it turns out only those that own automated labor profit from it resulting is our present massive divided between the rich and poor, stagnate upward mobility for the poor and middle class and even a regression in their standard of living, with them working more hours and getting paid less in adjusted dollars.

Now don't get me wrong a stagnant economy with enough technology could be almost a utopia but it would require a completely new economic system like nothing every before, and I fear a wholly new political system as well, the social change required is simply beyond most peoples ability to adapt or even comprehend, future shock, Ludditism and revolution likely await us in the coming decades.

What does all this have to do with asteroid mining? Well I figure if transhumanism comes around that where they are going to want to go: the earth and humanity will be too much of a mess to deal with. Assuming we managed to hold civilization and technological progress together to make it to such a point I put good bets the next species we birth will likely not choose to destroy us, but rather the best option would be to get away from the insane talking monkeys as soon as possible, ditch the sinking ship so to speak, sinking from the machinations of increasingly irate hairless apes that infest it. And why not, machines need no air, food, or water, no pressure, no 72°C, no habitats. Space is far better suited to machines than humans. A completely autonomous asteroid mine is the cheapest kind of mine and also millions of miles safe from our human stupidity.

Edited March 30, 2014 by RuBisCO

[vger]

Vger, while I don't disagree I think your line of discussion is heading OT, and probably in a direction that would get us pounded with the lockhammer.

I don't need to elaborate on it further. Though I must say that in the speculative discussions I've had about humanity's future in space, very few have happened where politics didn't come up. Space has the potential to destroy a lot of popular notions of how our civilization currently operates, so getting into social/political/economic discussions about what system would work best under such conditions, is 'almost' inevitable.

[Rocketscience101]

No we are not. The thing is people are worried that we will run out in the near future. What people don't understand is how far we have come with technology, and how far we'll go. Eventually we will either be forced, or naturally break away from our dependents of fossil fuel, but the materials on asteroids, could be metals, and water and fuel. This would be more for use in expanding further into space, out into the galaxy, then the universe. As soon as we begin a large scale space exploration, it'll be to expensive to ship up all these materials. What we have planned is forming self sustaining colonies, that their only source of contact with earth, is with a radio. So they'll have to produce their own metals, fuels, and have to grow their own food, and raise their own animals. It will allow us to have bases ready to take in tourists, colonists, and explorers, and expand upon the world we send them to.

[Drunkrobot]

If you want to build anything major in space (which you probably do, since we all love space here), you will need raw materials at the very least. To get these materials where they need to be, you need either some fantastical portal technology to move materials from Earth to the building site, or you take resources from near the site itself. If the site is in an orbit of some kind, asteroids are almost always favorable than planets, since the fuel requirements to escape their gravity wells is tiny.

You can argue that asteroid mining isn't necessary, but it would be in the same way that America could import all of it's food, wood, oil and metal from Europe: Possible, but not realistic, financially.

[KerbMav]

Asteroid mining requires getting to the asteroids first. If this can be done keeping it economically reasonable, asteroid mining is a valid option to get resources for building things in space (bases, stations, ships) and also refining by-products found in the rock like valuable metals and the like to drop them back to earth.

I think there might even be ecological reasons to mine, process or refine some stuff in space, but for that to happen the ecosphere would have to be seen as operating capital.

[sgt_flyer]

A quick note for building basic parts in space - it will have a big chance to be done through 3d printers. After all, they started to 3d print some rocket injectors-and they work ! (Check Selective laser melting) (rocketdyne / Dynetics F-1B engine is planned to have most of it's parts 3d printed)

They even want to send a 3d printer to the ISS - so if they need a tool or a specific shape to fix something, they are sent the 3d files for the part, and print it only when needed. Then a ressuply run will bring the 3d printer refill.

With selective laser melting 3d printers on the asteroids, those use fine metal powders melted through a high power laser - so you'll only need to extract those metals from asteroids and turn them into a powder for the printer

Of course, those would have a harder time (in current technology) to build small electronics / cpus, which would need to be shipped regularly from earth. But a huge quantity of those is very lightweight compared to sending, for example, a full rocket engine

[Seret]

A quick note for building basic parts in space - it will have a big chance to be done through 3d printers. After all, they started to 3d print some rocket injectors-and they work ! (Check Selective laser melting) (rocketdyne / Dynetics F-1B engine is planned to have most of it's parts 3d printed)

Ok, as a mechanical engineer I'd say you probably want to curb your enthusiasm about 3D printing a bit. There's a lot of hype and unrealistic expectations of it in the media right now. A couple of facts about additive layer manufacturing:

1. It's not new. Engineers have been using it for 20 years or so, and it's pros and cons are fairly well understood. It's just the cheap consumer-grade thermoplastic extruders that are new, and have been causing lots of buzz.
   
2. It's a complement to other manufacturing processes like machining, casting and forming. It won't entirely supplant any of them.
   
3. You're not going to build an entire spacecraft through ALM.
   

Why number 3? Well take the example you give, SLM of aluminium. The successive layers of hot and cold metal cause huge internal stresses in the component. Effectively the whole thing is one big weld, with all the problems that brings. Cracking is a big problem. Coupled to the fact that ALM techniques always give poor surface finish compared to things like machining and you'll have an even worse problem with cracking in a highly stressed part. There are lots of different kinds of ALM technique, but they all have their own problems as well as advantages.

In short, while there are some components you could make via ALM (it's really good for oddly shaped things made of expensive materials produced in small runs) there are some things you absolutely wouldn't make with it. Ignore anybody who suggests that 3D printing can replace every other type of fabrication. Any engineer will tell you that anybody who tries to convince his wonder-tool can replace every tool in your trusty box is either a salesman or doesn't know their trade.

Besides, some stuff will just be plain easier to build using non-ALM methods. Would you 3D print a length of ali tube, or just extrude it? Right tool for the job.

[sgt_flyer]

well, i never spoke of aluminium in the case i highlighted,specifically the nasa part, it's a nickel based SLM - and nasa studied the finished product afterwards : basically, it's overall resistance is lower than a standard part, but don't suffer from weldings (which would be even weaker points).

the main problem if you send an automated manufacturing system in space, is the sheer size of such a system, if you want it to do specific elements - plus, it's not versatile... i'm well aware that we can't use the current ALM systems for high finish parts - but a more evolved technique than what currently exists will have the capacity to change what it builds without needing complete retooling - you just send it the blueprints.

the problem in space, is it will be very difficult to make a complex manufacturing system reliable - imagine the sheer number of moving parts... 3d printing will allow to have waaaay less moving parts, so you can concentrate on making it reliable without regular maintenance (for automated systems).

i don't think asteroid exploitation will start with space miners but rather robotic systems

[Seret]

3D printing isn't a one-stop shop. You can't just use it to produce any high tech component in a single process step. I know some evangelists talk like it is that simple, but it isn't.

ALM definitely has a huge role to play in any prospective space fabrication, but it certainly won't be the only thing we use. As for only needing to supply powdered metals, that's not actually any less hassle than supplying ingots for other processes.

[Nuke]

im actually rather more excited about direct metal laser sintering than other forms of 3d printing. the reduction in cost of high power laser systems are making for some very interesting possibilities. and it doesnt have to be just metals, ive already brought up bricks sintered directly from regolith, you could sinter lunar basalt. you could magnetically separate iron from the lunar regolith and use that to feed dmls machines for creating metal parts. you can robotically mass produce prefab building materials for when we start doing some serious lunar construction. you can have piles of rebar, fasteners, and basalt bricks ready to be used in construction of surface buildings. you could have piles of aggregates for lunacrete production. once prefab construction materials are available then you send semi-manned construction crews in to start building more permanent structures. then you can have foundries, metal shops, hydroponic farms, crew habitats, etc, and eventually shipyards.

whatever the limits of the 3d printing technology, i think its the best way to bootstrap more robust production.

Edited March 31, 2014 by Nuke