Why the space colonization focus of techies? So much of earth vastly underpopulated and much easier to colonize. What if an asteroid strikes earth? What if the space colonies all fail?
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZFipeZtQM5CKUjx6grh54g
I hope he didn't actually say that, because it would betray a rather fundamental mistake in space travel - that of distance vs delta v.
His idea is simple: an asteroid is but a huge pile of resources, so instead of having to go e.g. to the belt and back (that's the major cost for space mining, especially from Earth to there — out of our gravity well), you essentially get a 'freebee' coming right to you. With enough tech, you can mine it and shrink it enough it's not even a hazard for earth, or deviate it enough to put it into orbit or slingshot it towards a handy location, whatever. It's rare enough an event (65 million years and counting?) that it would be a nice space-candy for a budding space civilization.
In such a slightly more advanced civilization, you'd see news like "Space corporations get ready as major asteroid coming towards Earth is expected to yield x tons of useful materials, equivalent to n billion dollars saved compared to belt mining." Not to mention asteroids coming from beyond our system could contain exotic materials scarcely found around here.
Basically, with a near earth asteroid you can make a Hohmann transfer there, mine the nice stuff, and a Hohmann transfer back home - and you can make sure to pick a platinum-iridium asteroid, or whatever it is that's most valuable. With an asteroid on a collision course, you probably won't have the years to spare to take such an efficient transfer, and you have to move the entire thing away from its collision course.
A valuable asteroid with a 10,000,000km-class intercept a decade out might be really, really convenient. But most potential impactors aren't that friendly.
> Not to mention asteroids coming from beyond our system could contain exotic materials scarcely found around here.
Well, rare-earth minerals are called that for a reason - they're rare on Earth. Platinum-iridium asteroids are nice! But that doesn't require coming from outside our solar system.
I genuinely had no idea the delta-v of so many asteroids was so small, compared to LEO. It fills me with 'educated hope', in regards to not-too-distant (in time) sustainable space industry — this and many other factors.
Regarding Isaac Arthur (I'd link the video, but there's so many), he definitely doesn't make that kind of rookie mistake, so I assume it's more of a tongue-in-cheek remark, to address popular concerns and show solutions — drive the point that a space-faring civilization is equipped to deal with such 'problems'.
About rare-Sun materials, I was more implying the possibility of finding isotopes or elements scarce in the belt and inner solar system — but you're right, even just the outer system is already full of useful stuff.
You've convinced me that it does seem pretty improbable that we'd get such a good near-earth candidate during the short window of time when it would really help us a lot, though, assuming we don't take another millennia to get out there (and even then).
Just curious, at the current pace (considering 1950-today) and barring any major stall/setback/boost (no WW3 etc), what would be your personal estimate for the first profitable mining operations? 10, 30, 100 years?
I guess I should say that there is one other advantage of an asteroid that's already on a collision course - if you can aerocapture instead of doing that propulsively, you only really have to pay the delta v to get to the asteroid in the first place. The problem is that the asteroid might have structural issues that intense acceleration exposes, and that people might be a tad leery of having a large asteroid on a course where if you miss by 100km you kill a billion.
> Just curious, at the current pace (considering 1950-today) and barring any major stall/setback/boost (no WW3 etc), what would be your personal estimate for the first profitable mining operations? 10, 30, 100 years?
I'll say "10 years after we get cheap ($500/kg class) launches" - which might be within the decade, or might be never. I think asteroid mining might still be profitable at far higher launch costs, but the risk and the startup costs would be far higher to the point that it probably won't happen.
Fair point! If unsure, we'd better not play this game too close from home.
> I'll say "10 years after we get cheap ($500/kg class) launches" - which might be within the decade, or might be never. I think asteroid mining might still be profitable at far higher launch costs, but the risk and the startup costs would be far higher to the point that it probably won't happen.
Thank you for sharing that perspective.
One game-changer is to build some sort of structure around or far enough from Earth's gravity (I'm partial to orbital rings); anything that can be built now using earth materials only (at least the basic stages), to kickstart a space industry. Though I suspect there are bigger political and economical challenges than technical ones on the way to cross this upward bound.
I. Many "techies" are also science-fiction fans.
II. Space is where everything else is located.
> So much of earth vastly underpopulated and much easier to colonize.
For the next few minutes.
Either we stabilize population or we fill the Earth (exponential growth) or Nature stabilizes it for us (which is expected to be pretty gruesome if it comes to pass.)
If we want to keep growing we are going to have to do it in space. (Although that will only postpone the inevitable, albeit for perhaps millions or billions of generations.)
> What if an asteroid strikes earth?
That would suck, but it seems like a reason to colonize space.
> What if the space colonies all fail?
That would also suck. It is not a reason not to try though.
Also a hedge against earth's collapse.
That's not true - we know far less about the oceans than we do about space.
>The expanding frontiers of space represent a fantasy - where there would be contant expansion of human possibility/potential.
That fantasy depends on the common science-fiction metaphor that space is just a bigger, wider ocean and that we just need to recreate the Age of Sail with space ships.
But barring the discovery of a warp drive, "constant expansion" into space is simply not feasible (see the Fermi Paradox.)
>Also a hedge against earth's collapse.
Well, that's already underway, so...
That said, re: Oceans -- I find it hard to believe that "pioneers" could build islands or sub-oceanic cities (Gungan-style), without a nation-state declaring their sovereignty over it. Maybe a floating flotilla of ships, like in Snow Crash? But, still, generally I think that nation-states have us just where they want us.
The odds are that all the colonies fail is real, just as the asteroid striking Earth, but the colonies on the long term perfectly hedge against a lot of failure modes.
It's an appealing fantasy to which I was very strongly drawn in my youth, through O'Neill torii, T.A. Heppenheimer, von Braun, Clark, Asimov, and Heinlein.
I believe I've matured slightly.
Several other parts have grown in its place though.
Matured in favor of, or in opposition to, or in a different path altogether?
How do you plan to spread that maturity to others if what you're sharing is not clear? I grew up on the same diet of SF authors, and while I do acknowledge the need for work to be done here on earth, we shouldn't let that need tear down progress towards space. Especially when space expenditures are such a small part of what we as a country and the world spend our resources on.
The world, and the technology of it is in constant change; I really like your essay examples, in that the goalposts for your viewpoints are set quite thoroughly. If only everyone were so clear in their arguments...