Privatized Space Travel

For the discussion of the sciences. Physics problems, chemistry equations, biology weirdness, it all goes here.

Moderators: gmalivuk, Moderators General, Prelates

BirdMav
Posts: 52
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 4:03 pm UTC
Contact:

Privatized Space Travel

Postby BirdMav » Thu Dec 16, 2010 9:37 pm UTC

I’ve been waiting for this day to come, you heard it right, privatized space travel is becoming a reality. If you haven’t read in the news already, a rocket built by a private company called Space Explorations Technologies (Spacex) reached the orbit and came back to Earth safely. This brings about serious ramifications about the future of space travel, this opens doors to citizens being able to space travel for I imagine a steep fee. Obviously, the problem with this is if citizens trust private companies enough to shuttle them to space and back safely. Also, the government would have to trust the private company to ferry their citizens safely as well. I imagine there will be all sorts of standards and laws passed to make sure that safety is a huge issue for private companies before they can think to privatize space travel. But I for one, will be one of the first to research thoroughly the reputation of the private space company and get myself into space as soon as possible. Not to mention I bet the tickets will be a hundred times more expensive than airline tickets. But I can’t hide my excitement enough, the future is finally here, space travel for citizens and not just astronauts is becoming a reality. And I can just see future ramifications of this such as sending space shuttles with a renewable energy source and supplies to travel WITHOUT returning to Earth. Sorry if something similar to this topic has been posted, I skimmed through the forums and didn't find a similar topic.
Bipolar : The maximum of this function you can't begin to comprehend as well as the minimum of this function you cannot begin to end.

User avatar
Antimony-120
Posts: 830
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 4:16 am UTC
Location: Wherever you can look - wherever there's a fight, so hungry people can eat.

Re: Privatized Space Travel

Postby Antimony-120 » Thu Dec 16, 2010 9:55 pm UTC

Actually private space travel has been around for awhile now, IIRC tickets are 200K$ a pop. Although it wasn't particularly long in space, something like a few minutes.
Wolydarg wrote:That was like a roller coaster of mathematical reasoning. Problems! Solutions! More problems!


****************Signature Dehosted, New Signature Under Construction************************

BirdMav
Posts: 52
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 4:03 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Privatized Space Travel

Postby BirdMav » Thu Dec 16, 2010 10:24 pm UTC

A few minutes?? That's no fun, I would want to stay in orbit for at least a couple hours and take some pictures if I could... And not just in orbit but to like Mars and back.
Bipolar : The maximum of this function you can't begin to comprehend as well as the minimum of this function you cannot begin to end.

User avatar
Clever-Username
Posts: 79
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 2:30 am UTC
Location: University of Western Ontario

Re: Privatized Space Travel

Postby Clever-Username » Fri Dec 17, 2010 4:40 am UTC

To mars and back? That's going to be a little longer than a 'couple hours', try nearly a year to get there, same on the return trip.

BirdMav
Posts: 52
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 4:03 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Privatized Space Travel

Postby BirdMav » Fri Dec 17, 2010 5:34 am UTC

Well yeah, I got no problem with that as long as the vessel has windows. But for the meanwhile, I will settle for a couple hour flight into orbit.
Bipolar : The maximum of this function you can't begin to comprehend as well as the minimum of this function you cannot begin to end.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7604
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: Privatized Space Travel

Postby Zamfir » Fri Dec 17, 2010 10:13 am UTC

BirdMav wrote:Well yeah, I got no problem with that as long as the vessel has windows.

Given the radiation risks I wouldn't bet on windows.

User avatar
Tass
Posts: 1909
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2008 2:21 pm UTC
Location: Niels Bohr Institute, Copenhagen.

Re: Privatized Space Travel

Postby Tass » Fri Dec 17, 2010 1:31 pm UTC

Zamfir wrote:
BirdMav wrote:Well yeah, I got no problem with that as long as the vessel has windows.

Given the radiation risks I wouldn't bet on windows.


In LEO it is fine.

User avatar
Antimony-120
Posts: 830
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 4:16 am UTC
Location: Wherever you can look - wherever there's a fight, so hungry people can eat.

Re: Privatized Space Travel

Postby Antimony-120 » Fri Dec 17, 2010 2:25 pm UTC

Tass wrote:
Zamfir wrote:
BirdMav wrote:Well yeah, I got no problem with that as long as the vessel has windows.

Given the radiation risks I wouldn't bet on windows.


In LEO it is fine.


True, however the windows comment was about something to look at on a trip to Mars, so it is...decidely less fine.
Wolydarg wrote:That was like a roller coaster of mathematical reasoning. Problems! Solutions! More problems!


****************Signature Dehosted, New Signature Under Construction************************

Mr_Rose
Posts: 380
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 9:32 am UTC

Re: Privatized Space Travel

Postby Mr_Rose » Fri Dec 17, 2010 2:56 pm UTC

Uh? The biggest radiation risk on any extraterrestrial flight is going to be the VABs and an occasional flare, right?
We know how to get past the first and we can build a storm cellar for the second. And/or project an artificial magnetic field to create mini-belts of our own....
I always thought the problem with windows was the same as on high-altitude pressurised aircraft, namely that they are a significant structural weakness. :?:
Microevolution is a term — when used by creationists — that is the evolutionary equivalent of the belief that the mechanism you use to walk from your bedroom to the kitchen is insufficient to get you from New York to Los Angeles.

User avatar
Antimony-120
Posts: 830
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 4:16 am UTC
Location: Wherever you can look - wherever there's a fight, so hungry people can eat.

Re: Privatized Space Travel

Postby Antimony-120 » Fri Dec 17, 2010 3:11 pm UTC

Mr_Rose wrote:Uh? The biggest radiation risk on any extraterrestrial flight is going to be the VABs and an occasional flare, right?
We know how to get past the first and we can build a storm cellar for the second. And/or project an artificial magnetic field to create mini-belts of our own....
I always thought the problem with windows was the same as on high-altitude pressurised aircraft, namely that they are a significant structural weakness. :?:


A storm cellar, on a spaceship? I'm not entirely certain where or why you would construct that. Also, keep in mind dosage = intensity*length. We're talking a couple hundred times more duration than the Apollo missions here, so the intensity had best be very very low. Doable, but windows are probably not worth the expense and danger.
Wolydarg wrote:That was like a roller coaster of mathematical reasoning. Problems! Solutions! More problems!


****************Signature Dehosted, New Signature Under Construction************************

Glass Fractal
Posts: 497
Joined: Thu May 13, 2010 2:53 am UTC

Re: Privatized Space Travel

Postby Glass Fractal » Fri Dec 17, 2010 7:36 pm UTC

Antimony-120 wrote:
Mr_Rose wrote:Uh? The biggest radiation risk on any extraterrestrial flight is going to be the VABs and an occasional flare, right?
We know how to get past the first and we can build a storm cellar for the second. And/or project an artificial magnetic field to create mini-belts of our own....
I always thought the problem with windows was the same as on high-altitude pressurised aircraft, namely that they are a significant structural weakness. :?:


A storm cellar, on a spaceship? I'm not entirely certain where or why you would construct that. Also, keep in mind dosage = intensity*length. We're talking a couple hundred times more duration than the Apollo missions here, so the intensity had best be very very low. Doable, but windows are probably not worth the expense and danger.


The storm cellar idea is to have a room buried deep inside the ship so that there is as much material between the travelers and flare as possible.

User avatar
Cynical Idealist
Posts: 1124
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 10:48 pm UTC

Re: Privatized Space Travel

Postby Cynical Idealist » Fri Dec 17, 2010 10:01 pm UTC

Antimony-120 wrote:A storm cellar, on a spaceship? I'm not entirely certain where or why you would construct that.

You want a place to hide from solar flares and other big nasty spikes of radiation. Providing the entire craft with enough radiation shielding material to effectively protect from a solar flare would cost a lot of mass, so it's cheaper to build most of the ship to protect against typical radiation, and stick a smallish room with extra shielding material around it in the center of the living area (using that mass as additional shielding).
The internet removes the two biggest aids in detecting sarcasm:
1)The tone of voice
2)the assumption that the other person is sane
Elvish Pillager wrote:See? All the problems in our society are caused by violent video games, like FarmVille.

Soralin
Posts: 1347
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 12:06 am UTC

Re: Privatized Space Travel

Postby Soralin » Sat Dec 18, 2010 10:19 am UTC

You could also go with a shadow shield, especially if you're also using a nuclear reactor for a power supply.

Since shielding for a nuclear reactor can be expensive in terms of mass, you can simplify things by not surrounding it with shielding. Instead, just stick it off on a mast, and put radiation shielding just between the reactor and the ship. That way, radiation flies off from the reactor in all directions, but is blocked in the direction that would take it through the rest of the ship. The rest of the ship is in the shadow provided by the radiation shield. If you have one of those already, just turn your ship, so your shadow shield is covering the disc of the sun, or at least the part of it where the flare is happening. At least, as long as it's big enough and not far enough away to be able to do that, or provide a shadow for at least a section of the ship.

User avatar
Cynical Idealist
Posts: 1124
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 10:48 pm UTC

Re: Privatized Space Travel

Postby Cynical Idealist » Sat Dec 18, 2010 10:58 am UTC

If you're going with a shadow shield design, you want a long tether between the reactor and the things that need to be shielded. That saves a lot of mass in the shield, but it means that the ship is going to take a long time to turn. As a supplementary measure, it probably has some merit, but a storm cellar is going to be nice because you can get in it right now, instead of waiting for the shield to come into position.
The internet removes the two biggest aids in detecting sarcasm:
1)The tone of voice
2)the assumption that the other person is sane
Elvish Pillager wrote:See? All the problems in our society are caused by violent video games, like FarmVille.

User avatar
Sockmonkey
Posts: 1214
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2008 11:30 pm UTC

Re: Privatized Space Travel

Postby Sockmonkey » Sun Dec 19, 2010 10:39 pm UTC

You're going to keep the side with window turned away from the sun the whole time anyhow since it's not like you can look at the thing in the first place. People will be going mostly for the view, specifically, to see the earth from space.

ikrase
Posts: 319
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 3:22 am UTC

Re: Privatized Space Travel

Postby ikrase » Thu Dec 23, 2010 7:30 pm UTC

Windows in a spacecraft are rather overrated.

My suggestion is that you look at high delta-v ideas that do not involve such a long flight time. You might power both plasma engines and a NERVA-style core for landing with one nuclear reactor, perhaps.
[bibliography]XKVCBDOSLDMSD[/bibliography]

Technical Ben
Posts: 2986
Joined: Tue May 27, 2008 10:42 pm UTC

Re: Privatized Space Travel

Postby Technical Ben » Thu Dec 23, 2010 9:58 pm UTC

It's all physics and stamp collecting.
It's not a particle or a wave. It's just an exchange.

jwwells
Posts: 180
Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2006 4:47 am UTC

Re: Privatized Space Travel

Postby jwwells » Sun Dec 26, 2010 7:51 pm UTC

I'm a little concerned about the externality of space debris. A prerequisite for lots of private spaceflight should be an equal insistence on lots of private space cleanup.

Technical Ben
Posts: 2986
Joined: Tue May 27, 2008 10:42 pm UTC

Re: Privatized Space Travel

Postby Technical Ben » Mon Dec 27, 2010 11:42 am UTC

jwwells wrote:I'm a little concerned about the externality of space debris. A prerequisite for lots of private spaceflight should be an equal insistence on lots of private space cleanup.


Could end up with a garbage crew. :P http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetes
It's all physics and stamp collecting.
It's not a particle or a wave. It's just an exchange.

Moose Hole
Posts: 398
Joined: Fri Jul 09, 2010 1:34 pm UTC

Re: Privatized Space Travel

Postby Moose Hole » Tue Dec 28, 2010 10:01 pm UTC

BirdMav wrote:Well yeah, I got no problem with that as long as the vessel has windows.
But what will you see out of the windows? You'll see Earth and the moon get small. Then for 11 months you get stars out the windows, the same ones, all the time. Then you get to see Mars. Then you do the same thing again. I guess it would be ok if they had wifi.

User avatar
osiris32
Posts: 114
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 7:11 pm UTC
Location: Portland, OR

Re: Privatized Space Travel

Postby osiris32 » Tue Dec 28, 2010 10:59 pm UTC

Moose Hole wrote:
BirdMav wrote:Well yeah, I got no problem with that as long as the vessel has windows.
But what will you see out of the windows? You'll see Earth and the moon get small. Then for 11 months you get stars out the windows, the same ones, all the time. Then you get to see Mars. Then you do the same thing again. I guess it would be ok if they had wifi.


Wow. This saddens me that someone could stare almost completely unencumbered at the wonders of the universe and the first question they bring up is if there's wifi. It's the universe, dude. It's awesome.

The problem that I have with privatized space travel is that a few of the companies involved seem to have NO idea what they're doing, and are just using money left and right. Richard Branson's waste-plane for example. I've been involved in amateur rocketry for years now. In order to use bigger motors, you have to be certified. In order to get certified, you have to have a completely successful launch and recovery of your vehicle that is witnessed by another person of a higher certification. His last flight would NOT have gotten him certified, and that is just for cardboard tubes with balsa nose cones!!

Some serious oversight and regulation needs to be in place before privatized space travel can begin in earnest. Just like with the airlines. That way people can get onboard and know that they're safe on whatever flight they are taking.
Image

From the Depths of Hell, to the Gates of Glory, EVERYONE goes home.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7604
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: Privatized Space Travel

Postby Zamfir » Wed Dec 29, 2010 10:50 am UTC

osiris32 wrote:Wow. This saddens me that someone could stare almost completely unencumbered at the wonders of the universe and the first question they bring up is if there's wifi. It's the universe, dude. It's awesome.

Well, the wonders of the universe look pretty much the same in transit to mars as they do on earth, except they lack the slight twinkle, and they don't change from hour to hour. in other words, they are slightly less interesting than going outside at night to watch the sky.

How often do you do that, and how often do you stay indoors near the wifi?

User avatar
osiris32
Posts: 114
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 7:11 pm UTC
Location: Portland, OR

Re: Privatized Space Travel

Postby osiris32 » Thu Dec 30, 2010 2:42 am UTC

Zamfir wrote:
osiris32 wrote:Wow. This saddens me that someone could stare almost completely unencumbered at the wonders of the universe and the first question they bring up is if there's wifi. It's the universe, dude. It's awesome.

Well, the wonders of the universe look pretty much the same in transit to mars as they do on earth, except they lack the slight twinkle, and they don't change from hour to hour. in other words, they are slightly less interesting than going outside at night to watch the sky.

How often do you do that, and how often do you stay indoors near the wifi?


I live in an area that has heavy cloud cover a lot, so staring at the night's sky doesn't do much. But when it's clear, yeah, I go outside a lot and look at the moon, planets, stars, and galaxies that can be seen with my 6" telescope. My father used to run an observatory, so I'm all about looking at the stars.
Image

From the Depths of Hell, to the Gates of Glory, EVERYONE goes home.

Moose Hole
Posts: 398
Joined: Fri Jul 09, 2010 1:34 pm UTC

Re: Privatized Space Travel

Postby Moose Hole » Mon Jan 10, 2011 3:38 pm UTC

osiris32 wrote:
Zamfir wrote:
osiris32 wrote:Wow. This saddens me that someone could stare almost completely unencumbered at the wonders of the universe and the first question they bring up is if there's wifi. It's the universe, dude. It's awesome.

Well, the wonders of the universe look pretty much the same in transit to mars as they do on earth, except they lack the slight twinkle, and they don't change from hour to hour. in other words, they are slightly less interesting than going outside at night to watch the sky.

How often do you do that, and how often do you stay indoors near the wifi?


I live in an area that has heavy cloud cover a lot, so staring at the night's sky doesn't do much. But when it's clear, yeah, I go outside a lot and look at the moon, planets, stars, and galaxies that can be seen with my 6" telescope. My father used to run an observatory, so I'm all about looking at the stars.
Step 1. Move to the desert.
Step 2. Don't buy a ticket to Mars.
Step 3. Profit.

User avatar
Tass
Posts: 1909
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2008 2:21 pm UTC
Location: Niels Bohr Institute, Copenhagen.

Re: Privatized Space Travel

Postby Tass » Mon Jan 10, 2011 3:42 pm UTC

Moose Hole wrote:Step 1. Move to the desert.
Step 2. Don't buy a ticket to Mars.
Step 3. Profit.


Wow! Not even a "???" step! Impressive.

Anyway, why would we go to Mars in the first place? It is just another gravity well with most of the metals concentrated in the inaccessible center. No we should work on getting into SPACE.

User avatar
Antimony-120
Posts: 830
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 4:16 am UTC
Location: Wherever you can look - wherever there's a fight, so hungry people can eat.

Re: Privatized Space Travel

Postby Antimony-120 » Mon Jan 10, 2011 4:05 pm UTC

Tass wrote:
Moose Hole wrote:Step 1. Move to the desert.
Step 2. Don't buy a ticket to Mars.
Step 3. Profit.


Wow! Not even a "???" step! Impressive.

Anyway, why would we go to Mars in the first place? It is just another gravity well with most of the metals concentrated in the inaccessible center. No we should work on getting into SPACE.


Because it turns out that SPACE is pretty fucking empty. As in the total mass of all the main belt asteroids is roughly 0.5% of earth's mass. Mars has considerably greater deposits of easily accessible metal than you'd find in the belt. Think of Space like Saskatchewan, you pass through, you can't actually LIVE there (I'd apologize to people from Saskatchewan, but they're all too old to know how to use a computer).
Wolydarg wrote:That was like a roller coaster of mathematical reasoning. Problems! Solutions! More problems!


****************Signature Dehosted, New Signature Under Construction************************

Technical Ben
Posts: 2986
Joined: Tue May 27, 2008 10:42 pm UTC

Re: Privatized Space Travel

Postby Technical Ben » Mon Jan 10, 2011 5:09 pm UTC

Antimony-120 wrote:Because it turns out that SPACE is pretty fucking empty. As in the total mass of all the main belt asteroids is roughly 0.5% of earth's mass. Mars has considerably greater deposits of easily accessible metal than you'd find in the belt. Think of Space like Saskatchewan, you pass through, you can't actually LIVE there (I'd apologize to people from Saskatchewan, but they're all too old to know how to use a computer).


Wow. Never knew it was "0.5%" for the belt. Must be very sparse. :(
Will have to make sure any realistic space exploration stories are due to "exploration" or outer system mining.
It's all physics and stamp collecting.
It's not a particle or a wave. It's just an exchange.

User avatar
osiris32
Posts: 114
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 7:11 pm UTC
Location: Portland, OR

Re: Privatized Space Travel

Postby osiris32 » Mon Jan 10, 2011 5:40 pm UTC

Antimony-120 wrote:Because it turns out that SPACE is pretty fucking empty. As in the total mass of all the main belt asteroids is roughly 0.5% of earth's mass. Mars has considerably greater deposits of easily accessible metal than you'd find in the belt. Think of Space like Saskatchewan, you pass through, you can't actually LIVE there (I'd apologize to people from Saskatchewan, but they're all too old to know how to use a computer).


"Space," it says, "is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mindbogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space, listen..."
Image

From the Depths of Hell, to the Gates of Glory, EVERYONE goes home.

User avatar
EdgarJPublius
Official Propagandi.... Nifty Poster Guy
Posts: 3726
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:56 am UTC
Location: where the wind takes me

Re: Privatized Space Travel

Postby EdgarJPublius » Mon Jan 10, 2011 7:46 pm UTC

There are still advantages to mining asteroids instead of planets though.

the first being of course the gravity wells are expensive to get stuff into and out of.
Also, matter in asteroids is largely undifferentiated, unlike in planets with gravity wells which tend to concentrate all the really good rare earth metals near the core where it's really expensive to get to them.
The main asteroid belt may not have nearly as much resources to exploit as earth, but the combination of less gravity and the lack of differentiation means that over-all, there is still far more resources that are actually feasible to exploit.

Also, the main belt is only a fraction of the total mass of asteroids in the system, there are also the trojan asteroids and other clusters to consider.
Roosevelt wrote:
I wrote:Does Space Teddy Roosevelt wrestle Space Bears and fight the Space Spanish-American War with his band of Space-volunteers the Space Rough Riders?

Yes.

-still unaware of the origin and meaning of his own user-title

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Privatized Space Travel

Postby Izawwlgood » Mon Jan 10, 2011 7:51 pm UTC

Tass wrote:
Moose Hole wrote:Step 1. Move to the desert.
Step 2. Don't buy a ticket to Mars.
Step 3. Profit.


Wow! Not even a "???" step! Impressive.

Anyway, why would we go to Mars in the first place? It is just another gravity well with most of the metals concentrated in the inaccessible center. No we should work on getting into SPACE.

Yo.

Mars has a number of advantages over space. Mars has a number of advantages over Luna. We should do it all.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

Technical Ben
Posts: 2986
Joined: Tue May 27, 2008 10:42 pm UTC

Re: Privatized Space Travel

Postby Technical Ben » Mon Jan 10, 2011 7:53 pm UTC

Oh I knew that. Just not how small the failed rocky planetoid between Mars and Jupiter was.
To illustrate how big the "gaps" are, we can look at Galaxies. These would look very bright and well populated to us. But if two were to pass through each other, there would be hardly any collisions at all. There is enough space between the stars and matter to just fit past.

PS Izawwlgood. Earth* has a number of advantages over Mars. We should do it. ;)


*Or the ocean floor, the poles, mountains, deserts or any other place on Earth.
It's all physics and stamp collecting.
It's not a particle or a wave. It's just an exchange.

Mr_Rose
Posts: 380
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 9:32 am UTC

Re: Privatized Space Travel

Postby Mr_Rose » Mon Jan 10, 2011 8:08 pm UTC

Technical Ben wrote:PS Izawwlgood. Earth* has a number of advantages over Mars. We should do it. ;)

Which we are aware of and already working on; the biggest flaw, and the one that all of the others alleviate if developed in tandem, is that dear old Earth is one target. A big enough splat and that's all of us gone, done. End of Line, species.
Microevolution is a term — when used by creationists — that is the evolutionary equivalent of the belief that the mechanism you use to walk from your bedroom to the kitchen is insufficient to get you from New York to Los Angeles.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Privatized Space Travel

Postby Izawwlgood » Mon Jan 10, 2011 8:21 pm UTC

Technical Ben wrote:PS Izawwlgood. Earth* has a number of advantages over Mars. We should do it. ;)

I wholeheartedly agree. The technologies required to spread to all surfaces of the Earth, even enhancing our ability to live as we are now, will all be useful towards spreading ourselves elsewhere and everywhere. So yeah, do it all. It'll all help everything all around. I don't think we should really stop so long as we're intelligently chugging along.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
Tass
Posts: 1909
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2008 2:21 pm UTC
Location: Niels Bohr Institute, Copenhagen.

Re: Privatized Space Travel

Postby Tass » Mon Jan 10, 2011 9:13 pm UTC

Antimony-120 wrote:As in the total mass of all the main belt asteroids is roughly 0.5% of earth's mass.


True. So they are not much use in building planets. However, remember that Earth itself is really fricking BIG (when compared to humans). 0.5% of earths mass is a lot.

The Earth, despite its size, can only support a few billion people. Planet living is a terrible waste of materials. The materials of the asteroids could sustain several quadrillion people in O'Neill cylinders. Sure obviously Earth could do 200 times better, but all that material is stuck in a big gravity well.

There exists asteroids that are almost pure metal. Try finding a 10km3 nugget on a planet. Sure the cores are full of metal, but I'd like to see you mining the earths core anytime soon. Space is really fucking empty yes. But it is also really fucking big, and the emptyness makes it easy to spot the gold.

EdgarJPublius wrote:Also, matter in asteroids is largely undifferentiated, unlike in planets with gravity wells which tend to concentrate all the really good rare earth metals near the core where it's really expensive to get to them.
The main asteroid belt may not have nearly as much resources to exploit as earth, but the combination of less gravity and the lack of differentiation means that over-all, there is still far more resources that are actually feasible to exploit.


What he said.

Izawwlgood wrote:Mars has a number of advantages over space.


It has science, yes. We want to know if there is or has been life. It may also be a source of light elements particularly hydrogen.

Izawwlgood wrote:We should do it all.


Agreed. Once we get space colonization going, putting science stations on Mars will be a lot easier.
Last edited by Tass on Mon Jan 10, 2011 9:16 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Antimony-120
Posts: 830
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 4:16 am UTC
Location: Wherever you can look - wherever there's a fight, so hungry people can eat.

Re: Privatized Space Travel

Postby Antimony-120 » Mon Jan 10, 2011 9:15 pm UTC

osiris32 wrote:
Antimony-120 wrote:Because it turns out that SPACE is pretty fucking empty. As in the total mass of all the main belt asteroids is roughly 0.5% of earth's mass. Mars has considerably greater deposits of easily accessible metal than you'd find in the belt. Think of Space like Saskatchewan, you pass through, you can't actually LIVE there (I'd apologize to people from Saskatchewan, but they're all too old to know how to use a computer).


"Space," it says, "is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mindbogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space, listen..."


Big isn't the same as empty. Yes it is also very, very large, but the other thing is that in all that largeness there is very little else out there.

EdgarJPublius wrote:There are still advantages to mining asteroids instead of planets though.

the first being of course the gravity wells are expensive to get stuff into and out of.
Also, matter in asteroids is largely undifferentiated, unlike in planets with gravity wells which tend to concentrate all the really good rare earth metals near the core where it's really expensive to get to them.
The main asteroid belt may not have nearly as much resources to exploit as earth, but the combination of less gravity and the lack of differentiation means that over-all, there is still far more resources that are actually feasible to exploit.

Also, the main belt is only a fraction of the total mass of asteroids in the system, there are also the trojan asteroids and other clusters to consider.


Yeah, but all that other mass is way the hell out there. The Trojans contain even less mass than the main belt (about 1/1000th of earth's mass, or 1/5th the main belt mass), and then you have to wander out to Pluto-Charon, Eris, and Sedna to find anything large. There is more out there in the Kuiper belt (where the three formentioned largish bodies are found), possibly as much as the earth (include the Scattered disc), however we are now talking about a volume of space so large that traversing it begins to become a nigh insurmountable issue within any reasonable transit time. Similarly, the Oort cloud is hypothosized to be several times the mass of the earth (possibly even as large as one hundred, although most estimates place it at the much lower 5-15) but it has a diameter of nearly 2 lightyears, meaning it's not an economic viability.

Nonetheless, we don't actually NEED huge amounts of mass, if one were to find an object with one one billionth the mass of the earth in, say iron, one would have approximatly one trillion metric tons of iron, which is not to be laughed at. But recall that gravity wells are not merely expensive to get out of, they are also non-trivial to get into. While there may be value in raw materials, the fact is that they are not valuble enough that the deorbiting cost it likely to make them viable anytime soon. What may be viable is finished products, which is why Mars is a more likely scenario, since it is large enough to support considerably more industry and developpment. Ceres is another possibility, although the likelyhood of a global ocean makes it less attractive (For future reference, if that is true then there goes 33% of the main belt mass for viable exploitation).
Wolydarg wrote:That was like a roller coaster of mathematical reasoning. Problems! Solutions! More problems!


****************Signature Dehosted, New Signature Under Construction************************

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Privatized Space Travel

Postby Izawwlgood » Mon Jan 10, 2011 9:26 pm UTC

Tass wrote:It has science, yes. We want to know if there is or has been life. It may also be a source of light elements particularly hydrogen.

Colonizing space is orders of magnitude more difficult than colonizing Mars. As for the second statement, Mars is actually deficient in Hydrogen, and would require it be imported.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
Tass
Posts: 1909
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2008 2:21 pm UTC
Location: Niels Bohr Institute, Copenhagen.

Re: Privatized Space Travel

Postby Tass » Mon Jan 10, 2011 9:29 pm UTC

Antimony-120 wrote:which is why Mars is a more likely scenario, since it is large enough to support considerably more industry and developpment.


More industry and development than what? Space? Space is much bigger ([/captain obvious]). You don't need a surface to put the industry on. Sure you need gravity for some industrial processes, and for human habitation, but that is easily achieved through rotation. If you have like you say a trilion metric tonnes of material, no gravity weighing it down, and abundant solar energy, then you can build really big thingsTM. Like I said you could have a quadrillion people living up there. Why would you want to drop stuff into the gravity well, life up there would be much richer. I apologize for my overuse of italics for emphasis.

Of course we need some initial export from space to Earth to get the whole investment started. My bet is that it will be solar energy, microwaved to earth. Maybe some platinum and other high value elements that are hard to find on Earth.

Izawwlgood wrote:Colonizing space is orders of magnitude more difficult than colonizing Mars.


I respectfully disagree.

Izawwlgood wrote:As for the second statement, Mars is actually deficient in Hydrogen, and would require it be imported.


Compared to Earth sure. If you want oceans then you are going to have to import quite a few truckloads of Jupiter atmosphere. But it does have ice, and early in space colonization it might be a cheaper source than Earth because of its smaller gravity well.

User avatar
osiris32
Posts: 114
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 7:11 pm UTC
Location: Portland, OR

Re: Privatized Space Travel

Postby osiris32 » Mon Jan 10, 2011 9:41 pm UTC

Antimony-120 wrote:
osiris32 wrote:"Space," it says, "is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mindbogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space, listen..."


Big isn't the same as empty. Yes it is also very, very large, but the other thing is that in all that largeness there is very little else out there.


You didn't catch the HHGTTG quote. I'm sad.

But it illustrates a point: The amount of energy needed to transit between these lumps of rock and iron is IMMENSE. Stellar distances are nothing to be laughed at. We are talking HUGE numbers here. Just transiting between our planet and our own moon took a rockets that dwarfs many skyscrapers. Yes, I know that a lot of that was to escape our gravity well, but the point remains that the energy needs to travel such vast distances that it takes even light hours to cross, is going to be a fundamental stumbling block. We need to work on energy-efficient propulsion before we even consider mining techniques.
Image

From the Depths of Hell, to the Gates of Glory, EVERYONE goes home.

Moose Hole
Posts: 398
Joined: Fri Jul 09, 2010 1:34 pm UTC

Re: Privatized Space Travel

Postby Moose Hole » Mon Jan 10, 2011 9:48 pm UTC

Screw mining. Why not just use space as a backdrop for TV shows? It'd be cheaper than using special effects.

User avatar
Antimony-120
Posts: 830
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 4:16 am UTC
Location: Wherever you can look - wherever there's a fight, so hungry people can eat.

Re: Privatized Space Travel

Postby Antimony-120 » Mon Jan 10, 2011 9:49 pm UTC

More industry and development than what? Space? Space is much bigger ([/captain obvious]). You don't need a surface to put the industry on. Sure you need gravity for some industrial processes, and for human habitation, but that is easily achieved through rotation. If you have like you say a trilion metric tonnes of material, no gravity weighing it down, and abundant solar energy, then you can build really big thingsTM. Like I said you could have a quadrillion people living up there. Why would you want to drop stuff into the gravity well, life up there would be much richer. I apologize for my overuse of italics for emphasis.



So instead of building a new building on a different planet, a building that is fundamentally the same as the ones we already know, you're suggesting it would be easier to build a building that has the extra problems of not having a solid place to sit upon (yes I know it doesn't bear loads, but it bears vibrations and torques and other stresses).

Furthermore, the big idea that lack of gravity will suddenly make everything easier? Not actually true in most cases. There are select areas where it is a useful thing. Chemical manufacturing might benefit. But for most things it's a pain in the ass. "Hey, I want to stir this while I heat it, if I was on a planet it'd do it itself, but convection doesn't work like that in microgravity". "Hey, I want to put this tool down, but I had better strap it down or else it won't stay there!" "Deary me, I'd like to slot this into the other thing, but I have to find a place to brace both objects because there's no gravity to make a nice normal force for friction to act upon.

Microgravity is not as useful as people think. There's a reason the only mechanical work that goes on in space is done by expceptionally well trained professionals, and that is because it is bloody difficult. Even then they have a habit of losing tools. In short, gravity wells are extremely nice things to have around.
Wolydarg wrote:That was like a roller coaster of mathematical reasoning. Problems! Solutions! More problems!


****************Signature Dehosted, New Signature Under Construction************************


Return to “Science”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests