SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the hard-to-swing-a-pick-in-zero-G dept.
So, you want to be an asteroid miner?
So [Williams] started talking to Christopher Dreyer, a professor at the Colorado School of Mines' Center for Space Resources, a research and technology development center that's existed within the school for more than a decade.
It was good timing. Because this summer, Mines announced its intention to found the world's first graduate program in Space Resources—the science, technology, policy, and politics of prospecting, mining, and using those resources. The multidisciplinary program would offer Post-Baccalaureate certificates and Masters of Science degrees. Although it's still pending approval for a 2018 start date, the school is running its pilot course, taught by Dreyer, this semester.
The focus seems to be on space colonies mining what they need in place, more than bringing material back to Earth.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday December 06 2017, @12:34AM (4 children)
When ever I hear the term Gravity Well, I know I'm talking to an idiot. You sure you wouldn't like to throw out a few random "Faraday Cage" quotes and maybe some Beowulf cluster references?
It is far less expensive to build space ships here on earth and lift them to orbit than it is to build the necessary infrastructure in space.
Our lift technology is pathetic. Work on THAT, instead of hand waving it into existence by assuming we can build factories in space and mine asteroids to build space ships. All without any realistic lift.
You watch too much TV.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by J053 on Wednesday December 06 2017, @12:42AM
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday December 06 2017, @12:51AM
Well there's little point to landing asteroid material on Earth unless there is more lift, EmDrive-to-orbit, or reusable rockets + nearly free fuel. And even then only the most valuable materials in the asteroids would be viable to bring back.
Even if you can't build spaceships in space (you say it's expensive, but "never attempted with high unknown costs" is more accurate), many asteroids contain water which could be made into fuel.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Wednesday December 06 2017, @01:07AM
Why? Gravity well is a perfectly good metaphor. All I can guess is that you find the term unesthetic, but that's merely a matter of taste, not accuracy.
That said, I suspect that the first things mined in space will be gases of various kinds. That's already fairly simple, though you need a good sunshade an a lot of plastic film that won't degrade in a vacuum, at least when cold. Highly refined materials will be a late addition. OTOH, in space you don't need to be strong in multiple directions at once unless you are attached to something that's going to accelerate quickly, so much less pure construction materials would be fine...though I doubt that any of our current cement formulations would work. It'll probably have to be metalized plastic.
Oh, yes. The second thing mined will be water. We really need to work more on closed ecosystems before space habitats are practical except for really niche purposes.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Wednesday December 06 2017, @06:35PM
The first few times, sure. But if you needed to build 1,000 spaceships or 1,000,000 spaceships, the cost of building the infrastructure in space starts to be less than the cost of lifting all of those spaceships out of Earth gravity. Unless you think a space elevator is realistic within our lifetimes. But you wouldn't, because you don't watch that much TV.
Also, my main exposure to the idea of gravity wells is XKCD [xkcd.com]. Which I read exclusively from inside my Faraday Cage after my Beowulf cluster calculates and executes opening and closing holes in real time to securely control the CLI [xkcd.com]. It's how real programmers [xkcd.com] do it. There's an emacs command for it [github.com].
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?