Page 1 of 3 [ 33 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

12 Aug 2011, 3:43 pm

Let's say that there is going to be a point at which the cost of petroleum will be too high to allow for any economy based off of vehicles using petroleum to continue using it. After that, there may be short range electric vehicles or whatever, but primarily I think that most things may go back to railroads and horses and sailing ships. Before that point is reached though, there is still more of a possibility of starting a space-faring civilization which may be able to sustain itself after sufficient infrastructure is present. Precisely now, during an economic recession, would probably not be the best time, however once that recession is cleared it would be, in my opinion, imperative to begin the construction of the orbital infrastructure to allow the space industry to not be dependent upon supplies from Earth. If we don't get that done sooner rather than later, I believe that it never will be done. I rather we go to space while we can though rather than procrastinate while our one opportunity passes by to enter into space as a civilization rather than as a bunch of campers.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

12 Aug 2011, 4:38 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Let's say that there is going to be a point at which the cost of petroleum will be too high to allow for any economy based off of vehicles using petroleum to continue using it. After that, there may be short range electric vehicles or whatever, but primarily I think that most things may go back to railroads and horses and sailing ships. Before that point is reached though, there is still more of a possibility of starting a space-faring civilization which may be able to sustain itself after sufficient infrastructure is present. Precisely now, during an economic recession, would probably not be the best time, however once that recession is cleared it would be, in my opinion, imperative to begin the construction of the orbital infrastructure to allow the space industry to not be dependent upon supplies from Earth. If we don't get that done sooner rather than later, I believe that it never will be done. I rather we go to space while we can though rather than procrastinate while our one opportunity passes by to enter into space as a civilization rather than as a bunch of campers.


Space technology will depend on a market on the surface to buy the goods and supply the labor and capital.

The cure for the "energy shortage" is to pave North America from coast to coast with fast breeder reactors and generate more electricity than we can possibly use at present. Coal and Oil will be used only as chemical feed-stock.

ruveyn



visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

12 Aug 2011, 5:08 pm

Capital investment in orbital infrastructure is, not to put too fine a point on it, asinine.

There are a very limited number of circumstances under which a return on investment can be realized. Telecommunications certainly is one of them. Perhaps there may be others, but until you can demonstrate a cost model that is going to have consumers on the planet buying products and services that will finance the capital outlay to build the infrastructure, there is nothing to build.

The funamental analytical tool for any business investment is the "Net Present Value" of a projected revenue stream. If the NPV exceeds the investment cost, the investment is a good one and should be undertaken. If it is less, it should not. But without a a revenue stream, the NPV of the investment is less than zero (because NPV is measured against the return from a risk free investment).


_________________
--James


Scandium
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2011
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 784
Location: Orange County, CA, USA, Earth, Solar System, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Cluster

12 Aug 2011, 5:09 pm

So we would first have to find something in space that's worth spending billions of dollars to establish "colonies"? (or whatever you want to call them)

I think the main resources in space that we will go for in the future are:

-Energy from the sun: Maybe find a way to harvest energy directly from the sun and "beam" it back. Then all of those environmentalists with solar panels will look like hippies. :P

-Materials that are rare and nonexistent on Earth: Probably not going to happen soon since we could probably find ways to synthesize these if we really need to.

-Tourism: Get all of the rich people in the world to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars for a few minutes in space. Once space tourism is more feasible, we can maybe establish a moon-hotel. Then go for Mars. :D

-Storage Space: And lots of it. But space probably won't be used for storage for a long time, except maybe for radioactive or biohazardous materials.

-Testing weapons of mass destruction in space: Although I believe there's a law against it, it's better than testing them on Earth. Especially if someone actually invents the Little Doctor.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

12 Aug 2011, 5:18 pm

So, make sure that any project done has returns in the short term while prudentially building for the long term. That will have to be how things are done because of how impatient everyone is nowadays that they can't even wait 3 minutes for their deep fried fries to be cooked.



01001011
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Mar 2010
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 991

12 Aug 2011, 5:28 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Let's say that there is going to be a point at which the cost of petroleum will be too high to allow for any economy based off of vehicles using petroleum to continue using it. After that, there may be short range electric vehicles or whatever, but primarily I think that most things may go back to railroads and horses and sailing ships. Before that point is reached though, there is still more of a possibility of starting a space-faring civilization which may be able to sustain itself after sufficient infrastructure is present. Precisely now, during an economic recession, would probably not be the best time, however once that recession is cleared it would be, in my opinion, imperative to begin the construction of the orbital infrastructure to allow the space industry to not be dependent upon supplies from Earth. If we don't get that done sooner rather than later, I believe that it never will be done. I rather we go to space while we can though rather than procrastinate while our one opportunity passes by to enter into space as a civilization rather than as a bunch of campers.


Enough of this ignorant pipe dreaming. The law of physics dictates that the cost of putting 1 sq m of solar panel in space under the current technology is enough to put 10's of thousands of sq m of solar panel on earth, both in terms of energy and materials.

For the same reason the people in the SSI don't cook or wash their clothes. Any community or industry in space is just silly science fiction.



simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,075

12 Aug 2011, 5:38 pm

THe only commercial markets in space are satellites and any commercial support that government space travel might require. The only way to expand that near term is to create more research destinations for corporations and nations. The only ones who can afford the ticket prices.

The only game changer beyond that would be mass tourism, which is not close at even Space X prices. A small flight rate of wealthy tourists is helpful but not a game changer.

SSP is controversial and no serious efforts are underway. And lunar resources have value only when NASA or space tourism needs them on a certain scale. For now it's cheaper to ship fuel from Earth. Eventually it will make sense but that will probably require a permanent lunar presence and a new generation of refuel-able earth satellites. Then you've got a real market for cheap space fuel.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,953
Location:      

12 Aug 2011, 5:45 pm

Scandium wrote:
-Energy from the sun: Maybe find a way to harvest energy directly from the sun and "beam" it back. Then all of those environmentalists with solar panels will look like hippies.

Solar arrays driving microwave transmitters that beam their energy to ground-based receivers, which convert the radio waves to useable electricity. It's been demonstrated. Not cost-effective.
Scandium wrote:
-Materials that are rare and nonexistent on Earth: Probably not going to happen soon since we could probably find ways to synthesize these if we really need to.

How rare is "rare"? Currently, all of the rare-earth metals used in cellular telephones and other electronic devices is obtained from commie China.
Scandium wrote:
-Tourism: Get all of the rich people in the world to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars for a few minutes in space. Once space tourism is more feasible, we can maybe establish a moon-hotel. Then go for Mars.

As they say, "There is no 'there' there", meaning that once you get into space, what is there to do that can not be done on Earth? Zero-Gee Sex, perhaps? Maybe spaceporn could finance this project the way that it financed the Internet.
Scandium wrote:
-Storage Space: And lots of it. But space probably won't be used for storage for a long time, except maybe for radioactive or biohazardous materials.

Getting it there cheaply and safely would be the issue. Short-term payoffs are practically non-existent, while long-term payoffs are by-and-large intangible.
Scandium wrote:
-Testing weapons of mass destruction in space: Although I believe there's a law against it, it's better than testing them on Earth.

Again, getting the multi-ton equipment into space cheaply and without the environmentalists getting their panties in a knot would be the issue.


_________________
The mere fact that science may not yet adequately explain an object, event, or experience does not mean the immediate explanation should automatically default to a conspiratorial, extraterrestrial, paranormal, or supernatural cause.


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

12 Aug 2011, 5:47 pm

Fnord wrote:
Scandium wrote:
-Energy from the sun: Maybe find a way to harvest energy directly from the sun and "beam" it back. Then all of those environmentalists with solar panels will look like hippies.

Solar arrays driving microwave transmitters that beam their energy to ground-based receivers, which convert the radio waves to useable electricity. It's been demonstrated. Not cost-effective.
Scandium wrote:
-Materials that are rare and nonexistent on Earth: Probably not going to happen soon since we could probably find ways to synthesize these if we really need to.

How rare is "rare"? Currently, all of the rare-earth metals used in cellular telephones and other electronic devices is obtained from commie China.
Scandium wrote:
-Tourism: Get all of the rich people in the world to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars for a few minutes in space. Once space tourism is more feasible, we can maybe establish a moon-hotel. Then go for Mars.

As they say, "There is no 'there' there", meaning that once you get into space, what is there to do that can not be done on Earth? Zero-Gee Sex, perhaps? Maybe spaceporn could finance this project the way that it financed the Internet.
Scandium wrote:
-Storage Space: And lots of it. But space probably won't be used for storage for a long time, except maybe for radioactive or biohazardous materials.

Getting it there cheaply and safely would be the issue. Short-term payoffs are practically non-existent, while long-term payoffs are by-and-large intangible.
Scandium wrote:
-Testing weapons of mass destruction in space: Although I believe there's a law against it, it's better than testing them on Earth.

Again, getting the multi-ton equipment into space cheaply and without the environmentalists getting their panties in a knot would be the issue.


How about mining the Asteroids for useful metals?

ruveyn



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,953
Location:      

12 Aug 2011, 5:50 pm

ruveyn wrote:
How about mining the Asteroids for useful metals?

Makes for a nice movie, but getting to an exploitable asteroid, mining it, and returning the ore and the miners (aka, "Belters") to Earth ... the logistics alone are staggering.

Any metals likely to be found in an asteroid belt can be found on Earth.


_________________
The mere fact that science may not yet adequately explain an object, event, or experience does not mean the immediate explanation should automatically default to a conspiratorial, extraterrestrial, paranormal, or supernatural cause.


Scandium
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2011
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 784
Location: Orange County, CA, USA, Earth, Solar System, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Cluster

12 Aug 2011, 5:51 pm

^Too expensive. Easier to get/make them on Earth. (edit: I meant two posts above)

But Earth has to run out sometime... Even if we mine the core for Iron and Nickel.



Last edited by Scandium on 12 Aug 2011, 5:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

12 Aug 2011, 5:53 pm

Fnord wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
How about mining the Asteroids for useful metals?

Makes for a nice movie, but getting to an exploitable asteroid, mining it, and returning the ore and the miners (aka, "Belters") to Earth ... the logistics alone are staggering.

Any metals likely to be found in an asteroid belt can be found on Earth.


Another thing is to build Astronomy Central on the Dark Side of the moon. All the advantages of a solid planet and a totally black sky with no atmospheric pollution. The Moon is clearly the place to do astronomy, especially on the Dark Side (the side away from Earth and its earth shine). Also there HE3 on the Moon which is just about the only thing that could make controlled nuclear fusion feasible. That is NOT found on Earth.

ruveyn



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

12 Aug 2011, 6:11 pm

01001011 wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Let's say that there is going to be a point at which the cost of petroleum will be too high to allow for any economy based off of vehicles using petroleum to continue using it. After that, there may be short range electric vehicles or whatever, but primarily I think that most things may go back to railroads and horses and sailing ships. Before that point is reached though, there is still more of a possibility of starting a space-faring civilization which may be able to sustain itself after sufficient infrastructure is present. Precisely now, during an economic recession, would probably not be the best time, however once that recession is cleared it would be, in my opinion, imperative to begin the construction of the orbital infrastructure to allow the space industry to not be dependent upon supplies from Earth. If we don't get that done sooner rather than later, I believe that it never will be done. I rather we go to space while we can though rather than procrastinate while our one opportunity passes by to enter into space as a civilization rather than as a bunch of campers.


Enough of this ignorant pipe dreaming. The law of physics dictates that the cost of putting 1 sq m of solar panel in space under the current technology is enough to put 10's of thousands of sq m of solar panel on earth, both in terms of energy and materials.

For the same reason the people in the SSI don't cook or wash their clothes. Any community or industry in space is just silly science fiction.


In the short term, you could fill the surface area of the Earth's land with solar panels, but how many more could you place in orbit around the sun at 1 AU radius and having the solar panels always facing the sun? How many toroid stations with farms could go there also? You have a heck of a lot more volume of space than you do surface area of any single planet, by geometric default.



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 35,189
Location: temperate zone

12 Aug 2011, 6:18 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Fnord wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
How about mining the Asteroids for useful metals?

Makes for a nice movie, but getting to an exploitable asteroid, mining it, and returning the ore and the miners (aka, "Belters") to Earth ... the logistics alone are staggering.

Any metals likely to be found in an asteroid belt can be found on Earth.


Another thing is to build Astronomy Central on the Dark Side of the moon. All the advantages of a solid planet and a totally black sky with no atmospheric pollution. The Moon is clearly the place to do astronomy, especially on the Dark Side (the side away from Earth and its earth shine). Also there HE3 on the Moon which is just about the only thing that could make controlled nuclear fusion feasible. That is NOT found on Earth.

ruveyn


Nothing against astronomy but it is not going to pay the bills.

But your second point- if you're saying what it sounds like you're saying- that the moon has a kind of hydrogen not found on Earth that could make cold fusion possible - then what are we waiting for? Sounds like a good investment.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,953
Location:      

12 Aug 2011, 6:19 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Fnord wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
How about mining the Asteroids for useful metals?

Makes for a nice movie, but getting to an exploitable asteroid, mining it, and returning the ore and the miners (aka, "Belters") to Earth ... the logistics alone are staggering. Any metals likely to be found in an asteroid belt can be found on Earth.

Another thing is to build Astronomy Central on the Dark Side of the moon. All the advantages of a solid planet and a totally black sky with no atmospheric pollution. The Moon is clearly the place to do astronomy, especially on the Dark Side (the side away from Earth and its earth shine). Also there HE3 on the Moon which is just about the only thing that could make controlled nuclear fusion feasible. That is NOT found on Earth. ruveyn

Where do I sign up?

;)


_________________
The mere fact that science may not yet adequately explain an object, event, or experience does not mean the immediate explanation should automatically default to a conspiratorial, extraterrestrial, paranormal, or supernatural cause.


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

12 Aug 2011, 6:41 pm

naturalplastic wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Fnord wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
How about mining the Asteroids for useful metals?

Makes for a nice movie, but getting to an exploitable asteroid, mining it, and returning the ore and the miners (aka, "Belters") to Earth ... the logistics alone are staggering.

Any metals likely to be found in an asteroid belt can be found on Earth.


Another thing is to build Astronomy Central on the Dark Side of the moon. All the advantages of a solid planet and a totally black sky with no atmospheric pollution. The Moon is clearly the place to do astronomy, especially on the Dark Side (the side away from Earth and its earth shine). Also there HE3 on the Moon which is just about the only thing that could make controlled nuclear fusion feasible. That is NOT found on Earth.

ruveyn


Nothing against astronomy but it is not going to pay the bills.

But your second point- if you're saying what it sounds like you're saying- that the moon has a kind of hydrogen not found on Earth that could make cold fusion possible - then what are we waiting for? Sounds like a good investment.


He is helium, H is hydrogen. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium-3#Fusion_reactions