Space Travel & Exploration

[cubby]

SpaceX has another Dragon Capsule ready for launch in the next week, sending another four astronauts to the ISS.

Musk has to be going after Asteroid mining to fund his full Mars colonization. Just asking, but @Endus, what would be a minimal time frame for getting an asteroid into a stable Lagrange position, getting mechanicals to it for mining, and then seeing some kind of material back on Earth - assuming no disastrous issues and the rare materials are relatively easily accessible?

I would guess any agency attempting this would probably go after the easiest/closest "small" asteroid that showed rare mineral prospects. Right now NASA and SpaceX are the only two U.S. groups with orbital launch capability. I can't see them getting minerals back on earth in under 20 years.

[Endus]

SpaceX has another Dragon Capsule ready for launch in the next week, sending another four astronauts to the ISS.

Musk has to be going after Asteroid mining to fund his full Mars colonization. Just asking, but @Endus, what would be a minimal time frame for getting an asteroid into a stable Lagrange position, getting mechanicals to it for mining, and then seeing some kind of material back on Earth - assuming no disastrous issues and the rare materials are relatively easily accessible?

Minimal? Pulling numbers from my modestly-educated-but-by-no-means-expert ass, I'd be highly skeptical of any time frame under 20 years just to get the rock (a meaningfully-sized one) into position, with another 5-10 for setting up mining and refining operations. There's gonna be complications, and getting supplies up to deal with that isn't swift. Months after that for delivery to Earth; if you're setting this up, you get mining going first, then as operations are kicking up there, you build the ore refining systems, and by the time you're done you've got a solid amount of material to work from. The 5-10 is from the first delivery of equipment to production of actual ingots or even on-site production of parts; assume at least a couple years to get mining underway and deal with unforeseen complications, refining should be "easier" in that it deals with fewer unpredictable concerns but more complex in terms of systems. I'm assuming there's complications in there, because that's a safer presumption than "everything works out as expected".

And that's a timeline from launch, not a timeline from today. You can accelerate these, of course, but that takes money, and it's going to be an exponential scale; if you want it twice as fast, it's gonna cost way more than twice as much. They could also do a "test rock" with something that's just a few tons in size, but then once you know it works, you've got a solid 20-year wait to get a proper rock in place, so you'll end up with downtime; I just don't think that's reasonable.

Also, deliveries to Earth really aren't the point. You're building this to accelerate orbital manufacturing. It's a lot easier to build a 3000-ton space station when the steel is produced outside of Earth's gravity well in the first place, rather than trying to lift that mass from ground zero to orbit. The rare metals like platinum may be dropped in part to Earth, but that's a secondary factor to the main thrust of the operation. It's how you sell the concept to investors, but it's not why you're doing it.

The one neat thing is that scaling operations up is much faster and cheaper. Once you've got a system to mine ore, refine it to metals, and shape metals into parts, you can build more equipment in situ. I'm presuming metal 3D-printing equipment at least to start (you wouldn't have standardized mass-production in the early days, you'd produce what was needed in the moment), but that's pretty flexible already. Even if it doesn't work in vacuum, sealing the process up in an atmosphere isn't that hard, especially not if you don't need that atmo to be breathable. You can extend that to creating local habitation for on-site staff, if remote operations aren't feasible in the long term, too; about all you'd need to transport in might be atmosphere, water, and foodstuffs, but you could set things up to have a hydroponic farm that maintains all that once it's in place. Energy wouldn't be a real issue since you'll have ready access to solar, even if you don't decide to build something nuclear on-site.

I would guess any agency attempting this would probably go after the easiest/closest "small" asteroid that showed rare mineral prospects. Right now NASA and SpaceX are the only two U.S. groups with orbital launch capability. I can't see them getting minerals back on earth in under 20 years.

Yeah, I've been pretty bullish on the concept, but I'm not expecting a quick turnaround, at all. I might see returns in my lifetime, if we get started on this today. It's definitely in the "invest hundreds of billions today, earn trillions in 30-40 years" category.

[wunksta]

Also, deliveries to Earth really aren't the point. You're building this to accelerate orbital manufacturing. It's a lot easier to build a 3000-ton space station when the steel is produced outside of Earth's gravity well in the first place, rather than trying to lift that mass from ground zero to orbit. The rare metals like platinum may be dropped in part to Earth, but that's a secondary factor to the main thrust of the operation. It's how you sell the concept to investors, but it's not why you're doing it.

Water is probably going to be one of the most valuable commodities that is mined in space. But yeah having factories and refueling stations in orbit is critical to ramping up space travel.

[Endus]

Water is probably going to be one of the most valuable commodities that is mined in space. But yeah having factories and refueling stations in orbit is critical to ramping up space travel.

Yeah, I only list water as something that would need to be transported because the presence of water is REALLY dependent on the particular rock they pull in.

It might be present which would be a big advantage, but that's not necessarily a given.

[PACOX]

Water is probably going to be one of the most valuable commodities that is mined in space. But yeah having factories and refueling stations in orbit is critical to ramping up space travel.

Water is a non-issue in space. Water is everywhere in space and easy to transport/recycle/produce at this point. One of the things we learned about maintaining space stations is how to manage water.

[wunksta]

Water is a non-issue in space. Water is everywhere in space and easy to transport/recycle/produce at this point. One of the things we learned about maintaining space stations is how to manage water.

Right, I meant commodities sent back to Earth. There's also water that would be needed for planetary colonization.

[Viconia]

Right, I meant commodities sent back to Earth. There's also water that would be needed for planetary colonization.

*Bear Grylls enters the chat*
"Guys, how about--"
*Bear Grylls have been kicked from the chat*

[Zan15]

SNIPY snip



Yeah, I've been pretty bullish on the concept, but I'm not expecting a quick turnaround, at all. I might see returns in my lifetime, if we get started on this today. It's definitely in the "invest hundreds of billions today, earn trillions in 30-40 years" category.

trillions? How so when the markets don't currently support that kind of return? If you ramp up supply you are just going to crush the price and the outcome will be much lower profit margins.

[Endus]

trillions? How so when the markets don't currently support that kind of return? If you ramp up supply you are just going to crush the price and the outcome will be much lower profit margins.

Were talking more mineable ore than is accessible on Planet Earth. The markets couldn't absorb that in a single year, but we're not talking about that.

Prices would end up dropping, but costs would drop as well over time, since the biggest expenses are initial setup.

[cubby]

Minimal? Pulling numbers from my modestly-educated-but-by-no-means-expert ass, I'd be highly skeptical of any time frame under 20 years just to get the rock (a meaningfully-sized one) into position, with another 5-10 for setting up mining and refining operations. There's gonna be complications, and getting supplies up to deal with that isn't swift. Months after that for delivery to Earth; if you're setting this up, you get mining going first, then as operations are kicking up there, you build the ore refining systems, and by the time you're done you've got a solid amount of material to work from. The 5-10 is from the first delivery of equipment to production of actual ingots or even on-site production of parts; assume at least a couple years to get mining underway and deal with unforeseen complications, refining should be "easier" in that it deals with fewer unpredictable concerns but more complex in terms of systems. I'm assuming there's complications in there, because that's a safer presumption than "everything works out as expected".

If they knew where the asteroid was going to end up in orbit, could they send out the equipment early, to cut some time?

And that's a timeline from launch, not a timeline from today. You can accelerate these, of course, but that takes money, and it's going to be an exponential scale; if you want it twice as fast, it's gonna cost way more than twice as much. They could also do a "test rock" with something that's just a few tons in size, but then once you know it works, you've got a solid 20-year wait to get a proper rock in place, so you'll end up with downtime; I just don't think that's reasonable.

What if they did a much smaller test rock, while at the same time bringing in the larger piece. Could they scale up production like you describe below and kind of create the tools they will need to create the tools, and have a production facility up and running, prior to the much larger asteroid arriving?

Also, deliveries to Earth really aren't the point. You're building this to accelerate orbital manufacturing. It's a lot easier to build a 3000-ton space station when the steel is produced outside of Earth's gravity well in the first place, rather than trying to lift that mass from ground zero to orbit. The rare metals like platinum may be dropped in part to Earth, but that's a secondary factor to the main thrust of the operation. It's how you sell the concept to investors, but it's not why you're doing it.

The one neat thing is that scaling operations up is much faster and cheaper. Once you've got a system to mine ore, refine it to metals, and shape metals into parts, you can build more equipment in situ. I'm presuming metal 3D-printing equipment at least to start (you wouldn't have standardized mass-production in the early days, you'd produce what was needed in the moment), but that's pretty flexible already. Even if it doesn't work in vacuum, sealing the process up in an atmosphere isn't that hard, especially not if you don't need that atmo to be breathable. You can extend that to creating local habitation for on-site staff, if remote operations aren't feasible in the long term, too; about all you'd need to transport in might be atmosphere, water, and foodstuffs, but you could set things up to have a hydroponic farm that maintains all that once it's in place. Energy wouldn't be a real issue since you'll have ready access to solar, even if you don't decide to build something nuclear on-site.

It seems like if it's done right you could build a couple of very large space stations. And if you found a rock that had ice, well, you'd be set for habitation.

[Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang]

trillions? How so when the markets don't currently support that kind of return? If you ramp up supply you are just going to crush the price and the outcome will be much lower profit margins.

I'd say the long term appeal of space colonization, like prior colonization process, is to create value by creating new real estate if not entirely new countries.

[Zan15]

Were talking more mineable ore than is accessible on Planet Earth. The markets couldn't absorb that in a single year, but we're not talking about that.

Prices would end up dropping, but costs would drop as well over time, since the biggest expenses are initial setup.

Still there is not many markets that can absorb that much supply and not end up crushing the market and making a return almost impossible at the cost expected. and even then those are most likely a very low % of the mineable ore on the thing.

It would be more supply than the entire metals market in a decade. If they were able to put one in orbit, the second they announced what was on the thing those markets would tank.

you'd end up in fracking territory once again. Huge gains > huge debt > big supply/production> oversupply > Price crash. >, bankruptcy> decreasing supplies... etc etc.

[Ripster42]

Plus, even if we were using nukes, you're basically talking about Project Orion, which only became unfeasible due to anti-nuclear treaties, not because the technology wasn't functional. So thrust-by-atomic-detonation isn't a new technology. It's a 60-year-old technology.

It's not 60 year old tech. It's never been built, never been tested. It didn't get much further than "It's theoretically possible and here are some potential problems, we'd need to do testing with real nukes to figure out if it's feasible." It's a 60 year old IDEA, but not 60 year old tech. The tech doesn't exist.

[Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang]

It's not 60 year old tech. It's never been built, never been tested. It didn't get much further than "It's theoretically possible and here are some potential problems, we'd need to do testing with real nukes to figure out if it's feasible." It's a 60 year old IDEA, but not 60 year old tech. The tech doesn't exist.

I'll have to correct you on that, as testing had been done to validate the concept of the pusher plate using conventional explosives. It might have progressed further if it weren't for the 1963 Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, which forbade further atmospheric nuclear testing.

[Ripster42]

I'll have to correct you on that, as testing had been done to validate the concept of the pusher plate using conventional explosives. It might have progressed further if it weren't for the 1963 Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, which forbade further atmospheric nuclear testing.

You didn't correct me on that. You literally confirmed what I was saying. It's never been built and tested.

[cubby]

SpaceX Dragon Crew delayed for minor medical issue. Not COVID and not an "emergency".

Next launch window is Nov 6.

[nasikas733]

I wish I could go to space and see everything with my own eyes. But for now we can watch everything on the Internet. I wonder if space will ever become easily accessible to mankind. So far I can only watch videos about space or study interactive maps. By the way, I recently came across a space debris map that was created with showmymap. I was surprised, because in my mind space was something unusual and inaccessible to mankind, although if you think about it, indeed, there is a lot of debris in space. Rocket debris, satellites that malfunctioned, and other debris. All of this has been going into space for more than half a century. Moreover, the aforementioned space debris poses a real threat.

[cubby]

Whatever it was, Musk recently became the richest man in the world. And whoever says anything about him, I think Ilona is a very educated and intelligent person.

His wealth is only going to increase, because SpaceX will probably go public, and that offering will be nuts.

[cubby]

SpaceX wins the contract for the Moon Lander, ruling against Blue Origin in their lawsuit after NASA initially awarded the contract to SpaceX.

[Easo]

SpaceX wins the contract for the Moon Lander, ruling against Blue Origin in their lawsuit after NASA initially awarded the contract to SpaceX.

Musk is a fucking immature teenager - https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1456275627221393409 - but damn he is right.
Yes, it sucks NASA did not have enough cash for two projects, yes, two are better than one, blah blah, but in the existing situation Blue Origin's lawsuit just slowed things down.