[redlion]

Well I'm a scifi nut, and I read like crazy. One idea that occurs often and seems close to scientific possibility is astral mining. That is, mining asteroids, moons, or other planets for minerals.

This could be accomplished in a variety of ways, but the cheapest would be automatizing. Design a mining infrastructure that can be built from local materials, create automated transport (to return raw materials to manufacturing plants) and control mining operations remotely, whether from local orbit or from Earth.

What say you, is this within the realm of possibility? Or is this probable disaster?

[Unseen]

redlion, on 09 March 2010 - 03:07 PM, said:

Well I'm a scifi nut, and I read like crazy. One idea that occurs often and seems close to scientific possibility is astral mining. That is, mining asteroids, moons, or other planets for minerals.

This could be accomplished in a variety of ways, but the cheapest would be automatizing. Design a mining infrastructure that can be built from local materials, create automated transport (to return raw materials to manufacturing plants) and control mining operations remotely, whether from local orbit or from Earth.

What say you, is this within the realm of possibility? Or is this probable disaster?

I like the idea except I would set up the mining facility by hand have it work remotely then return later when it's done.

[Token]

Have you seen Total Recall? Same shit is going to undoubtedly happen.

[Sweeney]

Who owns asteroid belts, and the rights to mine them?
It's a legal nightmare xP

We can't even agree who gets to mine oil off the coast of the Falklands!

[iargue]

redlion, on 09 March 2010 - 03:07 PM, said:

Well I'm a scifi nut, and I read like crazy. One idea that occurs often and seems close to scientific possibility is astral mining. That is, mining asteroids, moons, or other planets for minerals.

This could be accomplished in a variety of ways, but the cheapest would be automatizing. Design a mining infrastructure that can be built from local materials, create automated transport (to return raw materials to manufacturing plants) and control mining operations remotely, whether from local orbit or from Earth.

What say you, is this within the realm of possibility? Or is this probable disaster?

Well, there are several factors to deal with. First and formost, Ateroids are moving, and they tend to colloid with eachother alot. So you have to be able to protect the mining facility while it works.

Now, in the future, we might have the ability to get there, and even automate the setup, but due to the amount of things that can do wrong (Literally thousands) its always good to have atleast one man near by to fix shit.

Hyperspace transport is also very likely

Sweeney, on 09 March 2010 - 03:37 PM, said:

Who owns asteroid belts, and the rights to mine them?
It's a legal nightmare xP

We can't even agree who gets to mine oil off the coast of the Falklands!

USA ownz everything. Duh.

[redlion]

Sweeney, on 09 March 2010 - 03:37 PM, said:

Who owns asteroid belts, and the rights to mine them?
It's a legal nightmare xP

We can't even agree who gets to mine oil off the coast of the Falklands!

First come, first served

And the Falklands should just declare independence and become South America's Bahrain.

iargue, on 09 March 2010 - 03:40 PM, said:

Well, there are several factors to deal with. First and formost, Ateroids are moving, and they tend to colloid with eachother alot. So you have to be able to protect the mining facility while it works.

Now, in the future, we might have the ability to get there, and even automate the setup, but due to the amount of things that can do wrong (Literally thousands) its always good to have atleast one man near by to fix shit.

Hyperspace transport is also very likely

Actually most asteroids travel for relatively long periods of time without 'bumping' into other bodies. There is still a tremendous amount of space between one asteroid and another. Of course manned positions will exist, but think about creepy crawly robots churning through asteroid guts to find iron ore - seems more productive than having men crawl around with ice picks, right?

[Waser Lave]

redlion, on 09 March 2010 - 03:51 PM, said:

First come, first served

And the Falklands should just declare independence and become South America's Bahrain.

The thing is that they don't want to be independent or Argentinian, they want to be part of Britain so we have the responsibility to defend that. It's exactly the same with Gibraltar, they actually voted to remain British (about 99% against shared sovereignty).

In the case of asteroids I'd imagine it'd come back to old school rules of whoever gets to them first. Technically it's not beyond the realm of possibility to bring them into an orbit around Earth and mine them from there automatically.

[Unseen]

We could launch giant harpoons into space and reel us down some asteroids.

[redlion]

Waser Lave, on 09 March 2010 - 04:14 PM, said:

The thing is that they don't want to be independent or Argentinian, they want to be part of Britain so we have the responsibility to defend that. It's exactly the same with Gibraltar, they actually voted to remain British (about 99% against shared sovereignty).

Technically it's not beyond the realm of possibility to bring them into an orbit around Earth and mine them from there automatically.

Gibraltar and the North Irish both. Fuckers can't decide who they are. I mean, its not like the Republic doesn't speak English too. Admittedly, Ireland is in a slightly worse of position than Britain because of recession, but that shouldn't make a difference in the long run. And no VAC!

It depends on the size of the asteroid. There are some pretty sizable suckers out there. I mean, they think the one that killed the dinosaurs was miles across. That kind of mass doesn't turn on a dime you know.

[Jake2]

In theory it sounds like a brilliant concept but right now I think it's above our time.

It's kind of like sending the robots to Mars. We built it here + send it out to another planet [or in this case perhaps astroids] and we control it remotely back down here on Earth. This part seems easily achievable.

The next step would involve digging for minerals / oil / etc. Right now I don't see it being possible as if this was possible, why is there still a mining industries for humans? Instead of sending humans into the big dark caves you'd send the robots in to elimnate the risk of a cave-in which could potentially kill the miners. [correct me if i'm wrong here]

And lastly, how would the robot get back? The Mars rovers weren't able to get back - they decided to make it so they send the data back without having to actually get the robots back to view it. This is awesome as it ensures the data gets back regarldess of how the robot is going. With materials such as oil or minerals or other substances it's matter which means you're going to have to transort it back to Earth somehow. The first few trips (which would take years) would only be small quantities for testing purposes.

[Joanna]

That would make the possibility of further space exploration seem more attainable.

Jaaaaake, on 09 March 2010 - 04:22 PM, said:

In theory it sounds like a brilliant concept but right now I think it's above our time.

It's kind of like sending the robots to Mars. We built it here + send it out to another planet [or in this case perhaps astroids] and we control it remotely back down here on Earth. This part seems easily achievable.

The next step would involve digging for minerals / oil / etc. Right now I don't see it being possible as if this was possible, why is there still a mining industries for humans? Instead of sending humans into the big dark caves you'd send the robots in to elimnate the risk of a cave-in which could potentially kill the miners. [correct me if i'm wrong here]

And lastly, how would the robot get back? The Mars rovers weren't able to get back - they decided to make it so they send the data back without having to actually get the robots back to view it. This is awesome as it ensures the data gets back regarldess of how the robot is going. With materials such as oil or minerals or other substances it's matter which means you're going to have to transort it back to Earth somehow. The first few trips (which would take years) would only be small quantities for testing purposes.

Ummmmm.... orange?

[Sweeney]

Jaaaaake, on 09 March 2010 - 04:22 PM, said:

In theory it sounds like a brilliant concept but right now I think it's above our time.

It's kind of like sending the robots to Mars. We built it here + send it out to another planet [or in this case perhaps astroids] and we control it remotely back down here on Earth. This part seems easily achievable.

The next step would involve digging for minerals / oil / etc. Right now I don't see it being possible as if this was possible, why is there still a mining industries for humans? Instead of sending humans into the big dark caves you'd send the robots in to elimnate the risk of a cave-in which could potentially kill the miners. [correct me if i'm wrong here]

And lastly, how would the robot get back? The Mars rovers weren't able to get back - they decided to make it so they send the data back without having to actually get the robots back to view it. This is awesome as it ensures the data gets back regarldess of how the robot is going. With materials such as oil or minerals or other substances it's matter which means you're going to have to transort it back to Earth somehow. The first few trips (which would take years) would only be small quantities for testing purposes.

Leaving the surface of an asteroid is a lot easier than leaving a planet, because the escape velocity is so much lower.

[Jake2]

Never knew that.

Still, I'd say it's still above our time. I was going to draw an image but I really can't be fucked so I'll use text instead to describe.



astroids| astroids| astroids| astroids|


EARTH

^ That's a sea of astroids rushing past Earth.
What are we supposed to do? Send a bunch of drilling mine robots from Earth [or even a space station] to catch up to the astroids which would now be like this:

*ignore this it's just a stretchter* astroids| astroids| astroids| astroids|


EARTH


^ Already passing us. The time we get there and start driling & shit the astroids will be off the page and too far for the robot to go to come back. Unless they're super fucking slow & just hover around the outer-layers of the earths atmosphers like satelites do i'd say its too hard.

*edit* my spaces didn't work so i'll edit it in for the same effect.

This post has been edited by Jaaaaake: 09 March 2010 - 04:57 PM

[Sweeney]

Jaaaaake, on 09 March 2010 - 04:56 PM, said:

Never knew that.

Still, I'd say it's still above our time. I was going to draw an image but I really can't be fucked so I'll use text instead to describe.



astroids| [/color]astroids| astroids| astroids|


EARTH

^ That's a sea of astroids rushing past Earth.
What are we supposed to do? Send a bunch of drilling mine robots from Earth [or even a space station] to catch up to the astroids which would now be like this:

*ignore this it's just a stretchter* astroids| astroids| astroids| astroids|
[color="#ff8c00"]

EARTH


^ Already passing us. The time we get there and start driling & shit the astroids will be off the page and too far for the robot to go to come back. Unless they're super fucking slow & just hover around the outer-layers of the earths atmosphers like satelites do i'd say its too hard.

*edit* my spaces didn't work so i'll edit it in for the same effect.

Asteroids go around the Sun too You just time the launch to hit the asteroids you want as they zoom past, and then (presumably) time the return launch to land safely back here in the same sort of way.

[Jake2]

You're really smart, man.

I'm still going to have to go with my original thought & say it's above our time. We would have to calculate *EXACTLY* the right moment to make the robots land perfectly on the astroids. Then we'd have to wait for *X* amount of time until they're back close enough to earth to launch but now with a full load.

Most shuttles when they take off leave a part of them behind [like the base for example]. would this be happening with the robots too? I can see the robots taking off from earth / a space shuttle fine and perhaps landing on the astroid okay [although this is already pushing it for me]. Yet to still drill down into the astroid to get the material out.. then to take off [when close enough to earth] and safely land.. don't see it happening.

[Noitidart]

Anal mining...
How's is that sci fi? That's more like... what?




JK

[Sweeney]

Jaaakey, on 09 March 2010 - 05:12 PM, said:

You're really smart, man.

I'm still going to have to go with my original thought & say it's above our time. We would have to calculate *EXACTLY* the right moment to make the robots land perfectly on the astroids. Then we'd have to wait for *X* amount of time until they're back close enough to earth to launch but now with a full load.

Most shuttles when they take off leave a part of them behind [like the base for example]. would this be happening with the robots too? I can see the robots taking off from earth / a space shuttle fine and perhaps landing on the astroid okay [although this is already pushing it for me]. Yet to still drill down into the astroid to get the material out.. then to take off [when close enough to earth] and safely land.. don't see it happening.

At the moment, we probably could do it, but it'd be very complex and not even remotely worth the cost

[wetfartificial]

Actually, I recently watched a documentary where a team of NASA scientists were preparing to launch a craft on to a comet (or asteroid - believe it was a comet though). The craft would contain its own laboratory to collect and analyze minerals, which would be controlled remotely from earth. Saying we can't physically land asteroids is invalid.

But really, unless some new form of mineral were discovered on an asteroid that had revolutionary industrial properties, its not at all economical. I mean, it costs hundreds of millions of dollars to launch an unmanned satellite in to space, and billions to launch a manned one. Even if a new mineral were discovered, we could probably just take a small sample and recreate it on earth.

[kbbbb]

I would say that (in my unqualified opinion) the issue would be cost; the cost of space travel and transport has to get so low that it's worth mining these bodies for minerals.

redlion, on 09 March 2010 - 03:51 PM, said:

And the Falklands should just declare independence and become South America's Bahrain.

Waser Lave, on 09 March 2010 - 04:14 PM, said:

The thing is that they don't want to be independent or Argentinian, they want to be part of Britain so we have the responsibility to defend that. It's exactly the same with Gibraltar, they actually voted to remain British (about 99% against shared sovereignty).

Being sovereign British comes with many advantages over being anything else. Look what happened to Haiti, going first to call for independence in South America- it was impoverished for a long time then corrupt on top of that. The lesson of history for a lot of small islands is to stick with the home nation just enough to get money from them, but not enough so they run your life. Take Greenland for example. It would be unbelievably poor without subsidies from the Danish.
Argentina have renewed its push to get claim to the island, but it was a moderately easy win for Thatcher 25ish years ago, if Brown went in there tomorrow and won it might seriously boost his election prospects too.
I think Hong Kong would most likely go back if it had the chance.

redlion, on 09 March 2010 - 04:20 PM, said:

Gibraltar and the North Irish both. Fuckers can't decide who they are. I mean, its not like the Republic doesn't speak English too. Admittedly, Ireland is in a slightly worse of position than Britain because of recession, but that shouldn't make a difference in the long run. And no VAC!

No offence, but, it's pretty clear Gibraltar doesn't want to be Spanish or remotely Spanish. In the 1967 referendum the vote was 12,138 to 44 against, and the most recent vote 17,900 (98.97%) votes to 187 (1.03%) against. The first one was whether they wanted to become part of what was a dictatorship at the time, the second one probably a better representation of public attitudes. Gibraltar knows they have a good thing going LOL.

Northern Ireland is difficult, because there are religious issues in that situation. The Protestants mostly think they're British and the Catholics mostly think they're Irish. Citizens can now claim either nationality, in recognition of this. I doubt that the issues of whether N.I. is truly one way or another will be decided any time soon.

[Waser Lave]

kbbbb, on 11 March 2010 - 04:57 AM, said:

Being sovereign British comes with many advantages over being anything else. Look what happened to Haiti, going first to call for independence in South America- it was impoverished for a long time then corrupt on top of that. The lesson of history for a lot of small islands is to stick with the home nation just enough to get money from them, but not enough so they run your life. Take Greenland for example. It would be unbelievably poor without subsidies from the Danish.
Argentina have renewed its push to get claim to the island, but it was a moderately easy win for Thatcher 25ish years ago, if Brown went in there tomorrow and won it might seriously boost his election prospects too.
I think Hong Kong would most likely go back if it had the chance.

Argentina already said that they aren't interested in any armed conflict over the Islands so I think they probably learned their lesson from last time, I doubt they could afford to go to war yet either because it wasn't too long ago that they were virtually bankrupt...

And Hong Kong is even more complicated, I think we just didn't want to get too involved with China since they're so volatile and we'd struggle to be able to defend Hong Kong if China decided to do anything. They've still got an element of autonomy so it hasn't been too bad for them.

[kbbbb]

Waser Lave, on 11 March 2010 - 05:07 AM, said:

Argentina already said that they aren't interested in any armed conflict over the Islands so I think they probably learned their lesson from last time, I doubt they could afford to go to war yet either because it wasn't too long ago that they were virtually bankrupt...

And Hong Kong is even more complicated, I think we just didn't want to get too involved with China since they're so volatile and we'd struggle to be able to defend Hong Kong if China decided to do anything. They've still got an element of autonomy so it hasn't been too bad for them.

Yeah totally, Argentina definately couldn't afford to fight over the Falklands (based on what Wikipedia says on its economy). Still, Argentina is attempting to apply diplomatic pressure and be as annoying as possible to the UK, challenging rights to drill for oil on the coastline, forcing boats who are traveling en route to The Falklands around nearby islands to have a permit, etc. I am glad tho that the UK government are sticking by its citizens (the bulk of whom on the island are British ancestrally)

I know some ex-HK people who miss the days of British rule But I can see your point, the UK could not win going toe-to-toe with China. Probably the US is the only country who could "win" (if both countries agreed no nuclear). It wasn't like HK had a choice anyway.

[iargue]

Jaaakey, on 09 March 2010 - 05:12 PM, said:

You're really smart, man.

I'm still going to have to go with my original thought & say it's above our time. We would have to calculate *EXACTLY* the right moment to make the robots land perfectly on the astroids. Then we'd have to wait for *X* amount of time until they're back close enough to earth to launch but now with a full load.

Most shuttles when they take off leave a part of them behind [like the base for example]. would this be happening with the robots too? I can see the robots taking off from earth / a space shuttle fine and perhaps landing on the astroid okay [although this is already pushing it for me]. Yet to still drill down into the astroid to get the material out.. then to take off [when close enough to earth] and safely land.. don't see it happening.

Computers = Exact calculations. There are hundreds of asteroids that are almost planet size, and we have landed things on planet size and smaller objects. It wouldn't be had to calculate a simulation to land on the asteroid as we need. The only that limits us is the technology to land on their.

Shuttles only leave behind their base rockets, which are needed to get out of earths atmosphere. Asteroids lack an atmosphere so taking off would be very very simplistic (Just thrust). And even then, it can just leave from the International Space Station, which means that it doesnt need the extra thrust. Then it would have a calculated path, and land on the asteroid, and then the remote control would take over (Solar powered, like our mars rovers) and began to mine and store the minerals. After it has stored its load of minerals, it would then reverse the process, and thrust off and land at the space station.

If you honest believe that we cant land on an asteroid, you have never ever used computers or simulation.

[Warriors]

iargue, on 11 March 2010 - 02:19 PM, said:

Computers = Exact calculations. There are hundreds of asteroids that are almost planet size, and we have landed things on planet size and smaller objects. It wouldn't be had to calculate a simulation to land on the asteroid as we need. The only that limits us is the technology to land on their.

Shuttles only leave behind their base rockets, which are needed to get out of earths atmosphere. Asteroids lack an atmosphere so taking off would be very very simplistic (Just thrust). And even then, it can just leave from the International Space Station, which means that it doesnt need the extra thrust. Then it would have a calculated path, and land on the asteroid, and then the remote control would take over (Solar powered, like our mars rovers) and began to mine and store the minerals. After it has stored its load of minerals, it would then reverse the process, and thrust off and land at the space station.

If you honest believe that we cant land on an asteroid, you have never ever used computers or simulation.

Well..computers arent always great...especially ours..Hell our outerspace shield defense system is hoooorible..Just a couple bits of data off and boom the missile is 500miles off target..

It may be extremely hard to get onto an asteriod but not unlikely..I'm just wondering if we have the technology to do it?

Remember asteriods are fast espcially when close to our Earth's orbit as the Earth must travel around the sun...Maybe near our atmosphere it can be around 130,000 mph..

[iargue]

Warriors, on 11 March 2010 - 02:27 PM, said:

Well..computers arent always great...especially ours..Hell our outerspace shield defense system is hoooorible..Just a couple bits of data off and boom the missile is 500miles off target..

It may be extremely hard to get onto an asteriod but not unlikely..I'm just wondering if we have the technology to do it?

Remember asteriods are fast espcially when close to our Earth's orbit as the Earth must travel around the sun...Maybe near our atmosphere it can be around 130,000 mph..

For one. Computer are always great. They never ever ever fail at math (Okay, Save for the P3 bug). As long as we give it the right data, then we get the right output. So double/triple checking the human side of things, and we get a perfect landing. Hell, we landed on the moon, and our technology has came even farther then that. We also landed on mars, and that was done via computer. We are talking about Asteroids in the Asteroid belts, and their mean speed is 5km/s.

We have the technology to land on it, probably not to get to it yet (We could, if fucking Obama would leave the god damn space project the fuck alone). We could also create the technology to mine as well, but Obama feels that space isnt something we should spend on.

Ah, it was a good dream while it lasted.

[Warriors]

iargue, on 11 March 2010 - 02:43 PM, said:

For one. Computer are always great. They never ever ever fail at math (Okay, Save for the P3 bug). As long as we give it the right data, then we get the right output. So double/triple checking the human side of things, and we get a perfect landing. Hell, we landed on the moon, and our technology has came even farther then that. We also landed on mars, and that was done via computer. We are talking about Asteroids in the Asteroid belts, and their mean speed is 5km/s.

We have the technology to land on it, probably not to get to it yet (We could, if fucking Obama would leave the god damn space project the fuck alone). We could also create the technology to mine as well, but Obama feels that space isnt something we should spend on.

Ah, it was a good dream while it lasted.

Hell its not Obama..its everyone..Its Congress...Congress wants to shut down NASA, since they have no goal...and are draining the money..Obama has shut some programs down and Im pissed at em for doing so..but I cant put all the blame on him..The lame horse Congress is seriously screwing with us..

Maybe if we wanted to give NASA money we could take away the 4 billion we give to Israel a year for actually nothing since Israel gives us no resources or anything..We could take out some of the defense budget..who knows..politics is shitty.

Granted I voted for Obama, so I might be biased, I do like him and think hes good..but hes pretty much a phony to me now..and hasnt done shit for the country..Hes bowing to too much pressure.