Space X

[mbasic]

mikeylikey Agree. Space travel should remain a hobby of some rich white dudes spending their own money the stole fair and square on it.

ftfy

Most of what Tesla does is a scam?

The electric cars are using energy from coal, natural gas plants mostly....to charge the cars.
Their environmental cost is very high is terms of carbon and toxic waste, etc.
Its basically upper class white people pretending to save the environment.

Hyperloop is a complete utter scam.

Did they ever/even generate their own capital?
I was under the impression its all from overinflated stock ... manipulated ...
Elon et al are just doing what the "fat cat" investors do on Wall St (that were demonized elsewhere).
I don't think the car thing has ever turned a profit. (net profit, not gross-profit, or "profit this year", or somesuch shit)

[mettkeks]

mikeylikey Agree. Space travel should remain a hobby of some rich white dudes spending their own money the stole fair and square on it.

ftfy

Most of what Tesla does is a scam?

The electric cars are using energy from coal, natural gas plants mostly....to charge the cars.
Their environmental cost is very high is terms of carbon and toxic waste, etc.
Its basically upper class white people pretending to save the environment.

Hyperloop is a complete utter scam.

Did they ever/even generate their own capital?
I was under the impression its all from overinflated stock ... manipulated ...
Elon et al are just doing what the "fat cat" investors do on Wall St (that were demonized elsewhere).
I don't think the car thing has ever turned a profit. (net profit, not gross-profit, or "profit this year", or somesuch shit)

No. They never made money with cars. Subsidies, stocks and credit other automakers have get from Tesla to meet their emissions balance was and is their businessmodel to date.

[damufunman]

that rocket body is very 60's/retro/flashgordon looking

I'll give them that

But have you seen this one?

[aurelius]

@mettkeks well this one, as in singular, asteroid has $10,000 quadrillion worth of metals. So I’m thinking there is A LOT out there.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatod ... 6069223002

As to when? Depends on investment. We got to the moon pretty quick when motivated. Probably a few decades. But it’s not like the intermediary steps won’t have benefits or be profitable.

[mettkeks]

@mettkeks well this one, as in singular, asteroid has $10,000 quadrillion worth of metals. So I’m thinking there is A LOT out there.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatod ... 6069223002

As to when? Depends on investment. We got to the moon pretty quick when motivated. Probably a few decades. But it’s not like the intermediary steps won’t have benefits or be profitable.

This singular asteroid MIGHT have some unknown amount of metals, as it SEEMS to be made of Iron and Nickel. We might be able to tell what else is there in which quantities when NASA's probe gets there in approx 2026.

And if this is really just a giant lump of Iron in whatever form, then how are we going to get all the good stuff out of there? Ever seen a mine? It's not two guys with a pick axe travelling 4 years at it's closet point to us to grab 40lbs of Iron ore and bring it back by 2050-2060, depending on how this thing orbits. As of now, JUST THE LAUNCH of the PROBE costs $117mio. That's an expensive lump of iron.

What's profitable about that? Well of course Elon would find a way to make it sound easy while stuttering through an interview. Then He'd secure more government funding, make a couple of billions in rising tesla stock and for the next 80 years we'd just be 3-4 years away from solving all our of problems. We'll probably get there with Battery powered Electric Rockets... With graphene batteries.

[hsilman]

100% in support of wasting tax payers money with endeavors like Space X.

Even better, its not actually tax payer money. They already spent all that.

...you think we don't subsidize spaceX?

Where's DR when you need him? He could rant much better about how Elon's entire "business model" is suckling off the gov't teat. I'm sure it's on here somewhere if you use google to search the site.

[mbasic]

100% in support of wasting tax payers money with endeavors like Space X.

Even better, its not actually tax payer money. They already spent all that.

...you think we don't subsidize spaceX?

Where's DR when you need him? He could rant much better about how Elon's entire "business model" is suckling off the gov't teat. I'm sure it's on here somewhere if you use google to search the site.

@DirtyRed

[hector]

There's a book about Asteroid Mining called Delta V that is outstanding.
Like Tertius pointed out, lots of the mining would be on asteroids when they're near us.
Beyond the market value of anything mined, the mined materials are more valuable because they're already in space, so you can use the materials to build space infrastructure, and forgo the incredibly high cost of getting stuff to space from earth.

[aurelius]

There's a book about Asteroid Mining called Delta V that is outstanding.
Like Tertius pointed out, lots of the mining would be on asteroids when they're near us.
Beyond the market value of anything mined, the mined materials are more valuable because they're already in space, so you can use the materials to build space infrastructure, and forgo the incredibly high cost of getting stuff to space from earth.

This ^. Space infrastructure and exploration will become 'self-sustaining' once certain initial steps are taken.

@mettkeks It seems you are thinking in terms of mining asteroids with the space infrastructure, technologies, and economies that exist today. And concluding that it's 'not worth it'. A lot of human endeavors would not pass that test. Maybe it is dreaming big, but 'near' space exploration/colonization could be new epoch for humanity. And in my humble opinion: humanity needs a new endeavor. What we are doing now is not sustainable.

And Space X is doing the mundane, basic stuff (figuring out how to cost effectively get stuff into orbit) that we will need to do to take those initial steps. I'm excited.

[mbasic]

There's a book about Asteroid Mining called Delta V that is outstanding.
Like Tertius pointed out, lots of the mining would be on asteroids when they're near us.
Beyond the market value of anything mined, the mined materials are more valuable because they're already in space, so you can use the materials to build space infrastructure, and forgo the incredibly high cost of getting stuff to space from earth.

This is more of the flawed thinking.

A lot you space-dreamers have never done any work in real life in industry or construction.
Good luck with refining spacerockmetal in space ... a space mill? Awesome?
Takes a lot of energy, and "stuff", and things.
Better keep your day jobs.....

I'd laugh my ass off if anyone says something about bringing (guiding) a metally asteroid (aka planet killer) into earth orbit to make it easily mine-able.
What could go wrong?

I'm so rooting for the virus (now), it can't mutate fast enough.
#teamlickingdoorknobs.

-----------------

also, I can't help but to think also ....
If we do somehow graduate to the point of have the tech and knowhow to do something like capture an asteroid, mine it, process it space, and build stuff is space ....

....by the time we achieve THAT^ level of knowledge, skill, tech, etc.
the problem of needing a bunch of cheap metal from space would be averted already because said advancement would easily handle whatever the problem was down here by then.

[hector]

There's a book about Asteroid Mining called Delta V that is outstanding.
Like Tertius pointed out, lots of the mining would be on asteroids when they're near us.
Beyond the market value of anything mined, the mined materials are more valuable because they're already in space, so you can use the materials to build space infrastructure, and forgo the incredibly high cost of getting stuff to space from earth.

This is more of the flawed thinking.

A lot you space-dreamers have never done any work in real life in industry or construction.
Good luck with refining spacerockmetal in space ... a space mill? Awesome?
Takes a lot of energy, and "stuff", and things.
Better keep your day jobs.....

I'd laugh my ass off if anyone says something about bringing (guiding) a metally asteroid (aka planet killer) into earth orbit to make it easily mine-able.
What could go wrong?

I'm so rooting for the virus (now), it can't mutate fast enough.
#teamlickingdoorknobs.

-----------------

also, I can't help but to think also ....
If we do somehow graduate to the point of have the tech and knowhow to do something like capture an asteroid, mine it, process it space, and build stuff is space ....

....by the time we achieve THAT^ level of knowledge, skill, tech, etc.
the problem of needing a bunch of cheap metal from space would be averted already because said advancement would easily handle whatever the problem was down here by then.

I worked in construction. But i don't think that has any bearing on anything I wrote. My comments can stand on their own.

Who is talking about guiding an asteroid? I didn't, so I'm not sure why you cited me in refuting this point.

[aurelius]

A lot you space-dreamers have never done any work in real life in industry or construction. Takes a lot of energy, and "stuff", and things.
Better keep your day jobs.....

Hi. In the construction industry. One of my stream rehabilitation projects won a State award. Ever build 15' tall walls in a stream that has flowing 5' depth of water?

Energy is 'free' in space. Solar. Solar is so efficient in space (discussing in proximity to Earth, gets less efficient the further from the Sun you get) that there are concepts of collecting solar energy in orbit and microwaving it to the surface (if you ever played SimCity you know what i'm talking about)...but really on Earth we should be building nuclear power plants.

I'd laugh my ass off if anyone says something about bringing (guiding) a metally asteroid (aka planet killer) into earth orbit to make it easily mine-able.

That would not be the preferred place for obvious reasons. One of which you point out. The other is we don't want a bunch of stuff in orbit impacting our oceans and climate. We could potentially change the way the tides work and cause a mass extinction. Probably do it near a lagrange point. Lagrange points being reserved as launch sites. Near Earth does not have to mean close orbit.

What could go wrong?

Kind of like giving a bunch of psychotic monkeys nukes. What could go wrong?

the problem of needing a bunch of cheap metal from space would be averted already because said advancement would easily handle whatever the problem was down here by then.

Can't do space but somehow we will create a utopia here on Earth despite the fact we are on the path to destroying our environment and nuclear holocaust? That is some odd cognitive dissonance.

Look, you seem to lack vision. Which is normal. Just look at how intricate and complex the modern global economy is. 100 years ago (even 50 years ago!) you would have called anyone suggesting such a thing a dreamer. "You know how tough it would be to have global supply chains? The infrastructure that would have to be created? The technological hurdles that would have to be cleared? The industry that would have to develop over night? All of the different countries and entities that would have to cooperate? Do you work in logistics? Pipe dream!"

EVERY major human endeavor looked like a pipe dream before it was realized. We truly live in an age of wonders. Just 50 years ago the world was VASTLY different. So yes, I think with focus and investment (not even a lot initially), in the span of a few decades we will have multiple orbital structures (mostly private) with people living in them performing manufacturing/farming/power generation/and research, asteroid mining, regular trips to Mars, and so on. The beauty of it is a lot of the technology already exists. We aren't reinventing the wheel.

History's naysayers: 'We can't X' or 'We won't Y'

Humanity: Hold my beer.

[JonA]

100% in support of wasting tax payers money with endeavors like Space X.

Even better, its not actually tax payer money. They already spent all that.

...you think we don't subsidize spaceX?

Where's DR when you need him? He could rant much better about how Elon's entire "business model" is suckling off the gov't teat. I'm sure it's on here somewhere if you use google to search the site.

Just to be clear, the "they" I was talking about was the the federal government, not SpaceX. It was a joke about deficit spending. Eg, it's not actually tax payer money that would be (or is) given to Space X because the gov't already spent all of it's income from tax payers on other things.

[mettkeks]

Guys. Forget it. Have any of you an idea how big the cosmic scale is? Mankind has traveled 2 fucking light seconds away from earth. 2 fucking seconds.

@aurelius mentioned inter solar travel (mistakenly, I assume). The next solar system to us is alpha centauri. Near us in this case is 4 lightyears. This means the light we see in our night sky has reached us after 4 years of traveling at over 300,000 km per second. It would take 150,000 years for us to get to our nearest neighbouring solar system, and a message back to earth would take 4 years till it would arrive in our antennas.

"Near us" wrt the asteroid belt, means several years of traveling one way. We're extinct by the time we figured out how to get there, mine stuff and get back. Getting to mars takes a year when it is close to us, and by the time we're there, it moves a way from us. The asteroid belt is a couple if years further away.

Aurelius. By the we figured out how to do this, we either don't exist anymore, or we already figured out how to solve our problems.

[mbasic]

Aurelius. By the we figured out how to do this, we either don't exist anymore, or we already figured out how to solve our problems.

this is what i was trying to say.

You see this all the time in science fiction movies**,
"if they already had the tech to do X,Y,Z, ...then why is Q a problem".

**It just as laughable.

Add to that^, the time horizon problem with space travel.....

----------------

example:

Interstellar.

If we had all of the global resources and tech put together to build that big-ass space ship,
(remember, this was before they had finished up the math how to defeat gravity, time, and space)
.... we could EASILY fix our global warming problem.

The fuck with....
"you go ahead build that big ass space ship ... while I figure out the gravity problem down the road, I'll get it done, don't worry "

[aurelius]

Aurelius. By the we figured out how to do this, we either don't exist anymore, or we already figured out how to solve our problems.

I have only been discussing space travel within our solar system.

Yes, the everything orbits around the sun and space travel will have to account for moving targets. We are already pretty good at that. Sail ships had to account for wind patterns and unreliable maps. Open sea travel was perilous for most of human civilization. Space travel will go through a similar progression as humanity makes it more practical.

Trade routes took years to complete for most of human civilization. Do you know how long it took for silk from China to reach Europe on the silk road? The asteroid belt and Mars being 1 to 2 years away is a workable logistical issue.

And @hector points out, the majority of the resources discovered in space will be used in space. That is the beauty of it. Things like rare earth elements will be brought back to Earth. Other more common elements mined in space will be used to develop space infrastructure. Think of colonizing Mars. It will be easier to mine the asteroids for raw building materials and transport them to Mars than to transport the materials from Earth or mine them on Mars. Same is true for virtually any space infrastructure. Once the infrastructure is built to harvest resources from 'nearby' locales like the asteroid belt, it will be more cost effective to build space infrastructure with those materials than haul them out of Earth's gravity well.

Think like this: a simple ion engine can be used to power space travel. Rockets are required to escape gravity wells. The necessity to launch from within a gravity well requires the space ship to be light. But that reduces the safety and robustness of the ship. Once we have the infrastructure in place to support a dedicated space ship, space travel costs will be greatly reduced and become more safe.

The initial foothold into space will be perilous. People will die. But that has been the process for every great human endeavor. Again, look at open sea travel. Once we establish that foothold, we can start building really robust infrastructure where long-term human occupation is viable.

Bringing it back to Space X, I'm excited that some of those initial steps are happening again. You aren't. Okay.

[mikeylikey]

Aurelius. By the we figured out how to do this, we either don't exist anymore, or we already figured out how to solve our problems.

I have only been discussing space travel within our solar system.

Yes, the everything orbits around the sun and space travel will have to account for moving targets. We are already pretty good at that. Sail ships had to account for wind patterns and unreliable maps. Open sea travel was perilous for most of human civilization. Space travel will go through a similar progression as humanity makes it more practical.

Trade routes took years to complete for most of human civilization. Do you know how long it took for silk from China to reach Europe on the silk road? The asteroid belt and Mars being 1 to 2 years away is a workable logistical issue.

I'm not sure the analogy holds entirely. It USED to take years to get from China to Europe. It doesn't now. It is always going to take years to get from Earth to Mars using rockets. Unless you are positing an as-yet unknown method of propulsion.

And @hector points out, the majority of the resources discovered in space will be used in space. That is the beauty of it. Things like rare earth elements will be brought back to Earth. Other more common elements mined in space will be used to develop space infrastructure. Think of colonizing Mars. It will be easier to mine the asteroids for raw building materials and transport them to Mars than to transport the materials from Earth or mine them on Mars. Same is true for virtually any space infrastructure. Once the infrastructure is built to harvest resources from 'nearby' locales like the asteroid belt, it will be more cost effective to build space infrastructure with those materials than haul them out of Earth's gravity well.

Think like this: a simple ion engine can be used to power space travel. Rockets are required to escape gravity wells. The necessity to launch from within a gravity well requires the space ship to be light. But that reduces the safety and robustness of the ship. Once we have the infrastructure in place to support a dedicated space ship, space travel costs will be greatly reduced and become more safe.

Help me connect some dots here. As you say, you've got to get out of a gravity well and you need (in the current state of the art) chemically propelled rockets to do that. And that's inefficient but it's the only way (currently). Whereas, there are cheap and and easy ways to move around once you're in space.

But you also need a lot of energy to re-capture stuff in gravity wells - without crashing - once you've built it in deep space. You build a giant space station in the asteroid belt, you need a shit ton of delta-V to push that towards earth, or mars, and then place it in a useful orbit there. That's the piece for me that's still missing.

[mettkeks]

Yep. Mars is a year away when its close to us. And when you're there, you gotta stay there for a couple of years until earth gets close again. And this cycle only works every couple of decades. If you've got a problem, you just jumped off of the burning mayflower in the middle of the atlantic by night, while europe and amerika are moving away from you. Thats how space travel works.

I would love to have star wars like cities in the sky. I really do. It just doesn't solve a single problem in the next couple of centuries, and we don't even have that much time.

[mbasic]

But you also need a lot of energy to re-capture stuff in gravity wells - without crashing - once you've built it in deep space. You build a giant space station in the asteroid belt, you need a shit ton of delta-V to push that towards earth, or mars, and then place it in a useful orbit there. That's the piece for me that's still missing.

this^.

They are building the current spacestations in orbit because that is where they reside....and they can only payload so much at a time.

And the stations are still stuck in earth's gravity really.

Imagine the force needed to move the entire space station to .... anywhere.

Sure, slowly nudge it toward another body (sun, venus, etc) for a slingshot effect to somewhere else, etc.....

Its the same problem just scaled up, proportionally ....there's really no hack to building a big-ass-thing in orbit (or space, mars orbit, etc).

[mbasic]

Yep. Mars is a year away when its close to us. And when you're there, you gotta stay there for a couple of years until earth gets close again. And this cycle only works every couple of decades. If you've got a problem, you just jumped off of the burning mayflower in the middle of the atlantic by night, while europe and amerika are moving away from you. Thats how space travel works.

(to further use their analogy against them....)

Then if you want to send a message, for further instructions, SOS, advice ....it would take your carrier pigeon 4 weeks to get the message home and back. (radio signals/light takes 5 minutes to go back-n-forth to Mars ... you can't even remotely-control robots in anything close to real time)
(if anything requires immediate intimate interventions from home base ...by the time 'it' happens you are toast).