The Next Gold Rush? / Infinite potential in Mining Asteroids from Space

a reply to: Waterglass

I think it would make more sense to focus on mining the moon, which I believe is that they are planning to do. I remember reading that the south pole of the moon has a mineral (not sure if that's the right term, I'm not a geologist) that could be a better source of energy than fossil fuels. Might be helium-3.

they can't really land on an asteroid without accounting for the electric discharge, and all the logistics of retrieval seem outside of the next several human lifetimes unless of course they open up about those black book projects they've been running since the 1930s or so.

Sounds like a script for a good sci-fi disaster movie.
"oh no.. we pulled it to hard ! heads up"

a reply to: juulzverne

But, they have?

www.forbes.com... -history/

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: juulzverne

But, they have?

www.forbes.com... -history/

I need a few more words to understand what question you are asking. they who / have what ?

originally posted by: juulzverne

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: juulzverne

No, it really isn't.

You're not a Flat Earther, are you?

you mean like is it level? in places, bumpy in others.

These words?

a reply to: Waterglass

The Human Industrialization of Space will Happen in the Next 100 Years , but it will be Done by Private Companies . Governments are Useless Bad Businessmen .



www.youtube.com...

originally posted by: Thrumbo
a reply to: Waterglass

When this actually becomes a thing in the future, the value of the precious metal will drop substantially imo.

The reason it has value is because there's a finite amount of it on the planet. As soon as you start bringing more of it to the planet from outside, it dilutes the total amount in existence.

Can you imagine? Your future generation children will be asteroid miners bitching about the samethings we are.

originally posted by: juulzverne
a reply to: Waterglass

I think it would make more sense to focus on mining the moon, which I believe is that they are planning to do. I remember reading that the south pole of the moon has a mineral (not sure if that's the right term, I'm not a geologist) that could be a better source of energy than fossil fuels. Might be helium-3.

they can't really land on an asteroid without accounting for the electric discharge, and all the logistics of retrieval seem outside of the next several human lifetimes unless of course they open up about those black book projects they've been running since the 1930s or so.

The Moon could, one day, provide a more abundant source of Helium-3.

But He-3 is only useful as an energy source when used to fuel a fusion reactor.


Humans have not yet been able to engineer a fusion reactor capable of sustained operation for more than 20 minutes. He-3 from the Moon will only become profitable enough to pursue once a significant amount of Earth's electricity can be generated by fusion reactors operating 24/7 around the world.


Mining the asteroids will be vital to a well developed, space-born civilization.

But until mankind firmly establishes itself deyond the confines of this one little Rock, the asteroids will have to wait.



ETA:

If mankind has yet to achieve something as simple as a sustained fusion reaction, how do you think it is even possible that some "black book project" would, in any way, make deep space (or even, near space) travel economically feasible enough to exploit the mineral assets of other planets.
?

originally posted by: Mantiss2021
Mining the asteroids will be vital to a well developed, space-born civilization.

But until mankind firmly establishes itself deyond the confines of this one little Rock, the asteroids will have to wait.

well a moonbase would help for any future endeavors in space, that seems like it should be priority 1, not Mars.

so what do you think the method would be they'd try to develop?
A) capture an asteroid or fragment of asteroid and bring it to orbit or down to Earth?
B) mine on the asteroid itself and shoot material back to Earth?

as a high concept I get it, but I can't think of a practical approach. just saying something like "dyson sphere megastructure" or some other sci-fi concept doesn't make it so. like trying to catch a unicorn using unobtainium bait-- neither of them exist.

a reply to: juulzverne

Mars has at least a thin atmosphere, and a useful gravity.

The Moon has no appreciable atmosphere, and far less gravity.

Mars is also much farther away than the Moon, and therefore may be less likely to be affected by any calamity that might befall Earth.

And Mars likely has more water than the Moon.



As to your asteroid question:

Let's say you've got some groceries in shopping bags in your car.

Now, do you bring your shopping bags into the house?

Or do you opt to drive yor car into your kitchen?

a reply to: Mantiss2021

I don't know if I'd call Mars atmosphere useful. You will never be able to live on the surface there, unless you are completely indoors. I could see it being useful if you said you wanted to crash an asteroid onto Mars and mine it there.

Bringing a diamond asteroid to Earth to crash into it sounds like a great plan on paper until you crash a diamond asteroid into your home planet on purpose.