Resource consumption on really tiny planets

[ChrisSpace]

So I have always wondered what a civilization would be like if it lived on a planet the size of Kerbin or the new Mini-Kerbin (from the Toy Solar System mod). What kinds of challenges would the Kerbals face? How could they survive? Would they have enough resources to go into space?

So in this post, I am going to start by making a few assumptions:

1. Kerbin and Mini-Kerbin have a very similar geological history to that of Earth, with the exception of having a tiny, extremely dense object in their cores which gives them their gravity.
   
2. Per Capita, Kerbals use up resources in roughly the same amounts and at roughly the same speed as Humans. The average population density is the same as well.
   
3. ‘Year One’ in KSP is the equivalent of the year 1950 on Earth. I chose this year as it was the time when the first suborbital flights were taking place and the big ‘space hype’ was beginning.
   

Got all that? Let’s begin!

So one of the core elements (no pun intended) of maintaining a civilized society is have natural resources available so growth can continue. Overall there are two types of resources:

Surface Resources such as forests and living space are calculated based on the surface area of a planet.

Sub-Surface Resources such as minerals and fossil fuels are calculated based on the volume of a planet.

So how exactly do we find how much of these resources are located on Kerbin and Mini-Kerbin? Well first we need to find out their volume when compared with Earth. What I found was this:

‘Cool, but why is this important?’ you may be thinking. Well, since the Kerbal population scales with the planets’ surface area while the planet’s Sub-Surface resources scale with its volume, the Volume: Surface Area ratio directly shows how fast the Kerbals will consume their Sub-Surface resources compared to Humans. For example, if there is some mineral that we run out of in 2056 (106 years after our starting point in 1950), then Kerbin will run out of that resource in Year 10 and Mini-Kerbin will run dry around the end of Year 1.

Yeah, this is intense. So how long can the Kerbal civilization sustain itself (unless it expands into space)?

Well, I have found various sources to show a range of estimates for various Sub-Surface resources. What I found was this:

Note: 1 Earth year = 3.427 Kerbal years

Note 2: Surface resources aren't included because they scale with the planet's surface area (and hence its population and resource consumption rate), so they'll get depleted at the same time on any of the 3 planets.

So what does this mean? It means that the Kerbal civilization is much closer to running out of resources than us. So the only way they can survive is by building up a space program to try to colonise other worlds and mine them for resources. This actually makes a lot of sense within the game itself. Think about it, why is it called the 'Kerbal' space program and not the space program of any single corporation or nation? Because its an international effort to work towards a common goal of 'not going extinct.' Also, why is it that Kerbals seem mostly fine with other Kerbals dying? Because they would consider it an acceptable loss in the race to leave Kerbin before its too late.

So in total, how long do the Kerbals have? Well, since most of our rocket fuel is produced from natural gas, we'd probably lose our capability to leave Kerbin by year 67, and Mini-Kerbin by year 7. Civilization could probably survive until coal runs out (the materials to make renewable energy facilities will have disappeared long ago) in 140 / 15, then everything would fall apart.

Oh and did I mention climate change? Since it is proportional to the consumption of fossil fuels, then using medium estimates we should see above-preindustrial temperatures of 1C by 21/3, 2C by 27/3, 3C by 31/4 and 4C by 36/4.

So, what was the point of this post? To show why I think the Kerbals are so determined to expand into space. Also, feel free to use it for any fan-fiction or storyline-based gameplay.

So, what do you all think of this?

[Elthy]

the materials to make renewable energy facilities will have disappeared long ago

You know that those materials dont acuatly disapear, when you build e.g. wind turbines from it? There is recycling...

[ChrisSpace]

You know that those materials don't actually disappear, when you build e.g. wind turbines from it? There is recycling...

Recycling will never be 100% efficient, so eventually said materials will be unfindable.

[RainDreamer]

So, what do you all think of this?

I think you have too much time on your hand.

But great work! Now if we can figure out a history of kerbal kinds on these data (the wars they fought over dwindling resources, the movement that eventually united them for the program, etc), we would have an amazing background for the kerbal world.

[magnemoe]

First of you don't run out of raw materials. You tend to harvest the easiest and cheapest sources all the time.

if one source run dry or become uneconomical you move to the next.

Still prices of most raw materials tend to be stable or even going down over time.

Better mining technology and economic of scale works in keeping the price down. Oil is the last example.

known oil reserves at $30/ barrel is far less than at $100/ barrel. More fun many of the old mining locations are closed down as they don't work running as large scale industrial projects.

Now you have some issues, say you only have one mine supplying something and that mine collapse you have an problem.

Real world examples here is oil production primarily in the political unstable middle east and rare earths where China did most of the production and then pushed prices a lot. This is not only an raw material issue, some years ago it was an lack of hard drives as most engines was made in Bangkok who got flooded.

[lodestar]

So one of the core elements (no pun intended) of maintaining a civilized society is have natural resources available so growth can continue.

I guess that depends on what you mean by "civilized". Growth and technology aren't essential to what I would call a civilized society. In fact, a society that's mainly concerned with growth and technology as ends in themselves are going through a civilizational crisis.

[Kerbart]

Your calculations are based on volume and area, not on mass. Kerbin is incredibly dense, so there are a lot more resources than your chart suggests. They're also a lot easier to collect. Dig a hole in the ground and the ores and oil is practically shooting out in a big jet.

[ElWanderer]

I don't think it's right to scale "sub-surface" resources by volume. Our mines don't go all the way down to the core; they hardly scratch the surface. The deepest mine in the world is just under 4km according to Wikipedia. That implies the resources we can dig up scale according to area, unless we go for truly gigantic mines in future or you're suggesting Kerbal mines go 1/10th as deep as the Earth equivalent.

Admittedly I'm not a geologist so I don't know how resource availability scales with depth into Earth's crust, let alone how it would compare to Kerbin.

Edit: another way to think about fossil fuels is that the amount available in total will be proportional to the number of living organisms that have ever lived, died then turned into coal/oil etc. That would be proportional to surface area if everything else is the same.

Edited November 9, 2015 by ElWanderer

[SomeGuy12]

Recycling will never be 100% efficient, so eventually said materials will be unfindable.

It actually is essentially 100% efficient if you use high energy methods. (I say essentially because 99.9999% pushes the "eventually" off until after the sun burns out so it does not matter if eventually will happen)

Only resource on earth that is unrecyclable is helium.

You're also totally wrong about "subsurface" resources. Only the thin layer of the Earth's crust is accessible to humans for all practical purposes. So for all practical purposes, we can only access total resources that scale with the surface area of the earth. Since Kerbin has less surface area, that means less total resources - except - you can dig just as deep on Kerbin as you can on earth, because the surface temperature of Kerbin is habitable to Kerbols which appear to be solid, carbon based life forms (you can tell by the greenery on Kerbin). This in turn means the crust on Kerbin must be just as thick as it is on Earth, and on Earth, we rarely actually mine all the way through the crust because it is too much trouble.

Edited November 9, 2015 by SomeGuy12

[ChrisSpace]

Your calculations are based on volume and area, not on mass. Kerbin is incredibly dense, so there are a lot more resources than your chart suggests. They're also a lot easier to collect. Dig a hole in the ground and the ores and oil is practically shooting out in a big jet.

Umm yeah, didn't you read what I said?

Kerbin and Mini-Kerbin have a very similar geological history to that of Earth, with the exception of having a tiny, extremely dense object in their cores which gives them their gravity.

You're also totally wrong about "subsurface" resources. Only the thin layer of the Earth's crust is accessible to humans for all practical purposes. So for all practical purposes, we can only access total resources that scale with the surface area of the earth. Since Kerbin has less surface area, that means less total resources - except - you can dig just as deep on Kerbin as you can on earth, because the surface temperature of Kerbin is habitable to Kerbols which appear to be solid, carbon based life forms (you can tell by the greenery on Kerbin). This in turn means the crust on Kerbin must be just as thick as it is on Earth, and on Earth, we rarely actually mine all the way through the crust because it is too much trouble.

I don't think it's right to scale "sub-surface" resources by volume. Our mines don't go all the way down to the core; they hardly scratch the surface. The deepest mine in the world is just under 4km according to Wikipedia. That implies the resources we can dig up scale according to area, unless we go for truly gigantic mines in future or you're suggesting Kerbal mines go 1/10th as deep as the Earth equivalent.

There are already concepts to begin mining minerals over 10km or deeper into the Earth's crust, and such measures will become necessary on all 3 planets eventually.

another way to think about fossil fuels is that the amount available in total will be proportional to the number of living organisms that have ever lived, died then turned into coal/oil etc. That would be proportional to surface area if everything else is the same.

Yes, but what i'm imagining is that Kerbin's interior is basically the same as Earth's except it is way smaller, so the total density of fossil fuels in the planet's interior would stay the same. Also, how do you know how long plants and things have existed on Kerbin?

It actually is essentially 100% efficient if you use high energy methods.

That's not what i'm saying. What i'm saying is that there will never be a time when 100% of some resource is recycled. Even if recycling became compulsory there would still never be a 100% return of resources.

[vger]

You also need to factor in things like gravity and atmospheric density. The most obvious thing to us being that rockets on Kerbin need a lot less fuel to reach orbit than ours do. A "car" on Kerbin would probably not require as much energy to run as it would on Earth, because it encounters less resistance on Kerbin. Kerbals have less mass, so less HP is needed for travel (can you imagine how much fuel the world would save per year if everyone lost JUST ten pounds?) Kerbals are also arguably shorter than us, which means smaller living structures, which means less heat needed to keep them warm, etc.

It's not JUST the available resources that would scale down. We could even go so far as to point out that Kerbals have HUGE eyes, and so probably don't need to waste a lot of energy on light emitters.

Also I'm going to guess that on a planet with a smaller surface area and fewer pre-industrial resources to go around, reproduction rates for all creatures would be much lower than it is on Earth, otherwise the ecosystem would eat itself alive long before Kerbals could even evolve.

Edited November 10, 2015 by vger

[Caroliano]

There are already concepts to begin mining minerals over 10km or deeper into the Earth's crust, and such measures will become necessary on all 3 planets eventually.

Let's list what is wrong:

* Hipothetical 10+km mines don't change the fact that virtually all mines in earth are <1km and a 3km mine is already a technological and cost challenge. Mining better scales to surface size.

* 10km is still scratching the surface even on kerbin. Volume doesn't matter. On mini-kerbin it depends on the depth of the crust.

* I bet your "estimated year when it runs out on earth" don't account for "over 10km or deeper" mining, so you shouldn't be counting for all that volume.

* I would be interesting to plot "Estimated year when it will run out" with time for earth. Those numbers have been going up as we find new mines or the rise in the resource's price or new technology makes new mining technology economical. This should happen in kerbal too, even more rapidly.

Though "over 10km or deeper" isn't terrible precise and I never heard about such concepts. Are they more advanced than space elevator concepts?

That's not what i'm saying. What i'm saying is that there will never be a time when 100% of some resource is recycled. Even if recycling became compulsory there would still never be a 100% return of resources.

Ok, then re-run your calculus with, say, 80% recycling. Metals are relatively easy to recycle. The higher it's price the better. And you can bet that metals being mined 10km deep are pretty pricey.

[peadar1987]

10km is still only a tiny fraction of the diameter of the earth. For all intents and purposes, we can only mine the surface, so volume is pretty much irrelevant. Available resources effectively scale with the surface area, so Kerbin and mini Kerbin will both have the same resources-per-inhabitant available as earth. In fact, probably more, as the tiny size will mean they have less internal heat, meaning they can dig deeper than we can (although especially on Toy Kerbin, you would start to get the interesting phenomenon of tidal forces affecting mines as you got closer and closer to the super-dense core)

[bartekltg]

ElWanderer have said that before. Sub-surface resources does not scale as L^3. Our civilization get resources only from very thin layer, at most a couple of km. And, what is important, our estimation about how much resources we have and when they run out, is based on amount of minerals in this tiny layer. So ~L^2.

As you said, we can run out of Nickel before 2100. But 1.8% of Earth is nickel! We can run out of nickel only because we can't dig (more precisely, swim in lava and then molded metals:) to the 'volume'. Even for mini-Kerbin, as we assumed geologic content is the sama as on Earth, the amount of resources _accessible_ for 1950-2015 civilization is almost the same per surface unit.

[ElJugador]

Yeah, sure, recycling technically isn't 100%, but what do you think happens to the resources that are "lost"? They don't just magically disappear like you seem to think; they simply return to the planet's internal system, which means that by the time the quantity of 'lost' material reaches any substantial level, it would be findable again.

Edited November 11, 2015 by ElJugador

[NuclearNut]

It actually is essentially 100% efficient if you use high energy methods. (I say essentially because 99.9999% pushes the "eventually" off until after the sun burns out so it does not matter if eventually will happen)

Only resource on earth that is unrecyclable is helium.

You're also totally wrong about "subsurface" resources. Only the thin layer of the Earth's crust is accessible to humans for all practical purposes. So for all practical purposes, we can only access total resources that scale with the surface area of the earth. Since Kerbin has less surface area, that means less total resources - except - you can dig just as deep on Kerbin as you can on earth, because the surface temperature of Kerbin is habitable to Kerbols which appear to be solid, carbon based life forms (you can tell by the greenery on Kerbin). This in turn means the crust on Kerbin must be just as thick as it is on Earth, and on Earth, we rarely actually mine all the way through the crust because it is too much trouble.

High energy methods are impractical when you are dealing with an energy source that requires huge volumes of material for relatively low energy output. Yes, high energy methods work when you are re-cycling some things, but when you are talking something that big, you have problems.

[BigJuicyBrain68]

On 11/9/2015 at 1:37 AM, ChrisSpace said:

i found out that humans would be able to outlive 12 generations of kerbins

 

[BigJuicyBrain68]

1 human life time = 12 kerbal generations

[ChrisSpace]

Oh boy, this again?

I was 14 years old. 14-year-olds aren't the best at calculating things.

[kerbiloid]

But Kerbals... Kerbals got 12*4 = 48 kerbal years older... How to explain this for them?..

Edited October 10, 2019 by kerbiloid

[farmerben]

I've seen a book published in 1900 with estimates like these.  It claimed coal reserves would last 5000 years and gold and silver mining would be finished by 1925.  

[wumpus]

11 hours ago, farmerben said:

I've seen a book published in 1900 with estimates like these.  It claimed coal reserves would last 5000 years and gold and silver mining would be finished by 1925.  

That type of thing makes asteroid mining seem like a great idea.  On the other hand, mining old landfills typically makes even more sense (unless you want iridium or platinum by the ton).  Some of the crazier means of disposing of radioactive waste falls into this trap: we are far more likely to want the stuff back in a few decades than our descendants be in serious danger of the stuff in a few million years.