• @Geek_King@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    591 year ago

    I’m so intrigued by the prospect of mining asteroids! The amounts of metals and other resources, including rarer things like platinum family metals is incredible. There are some serious challenges that would need to be overcome, but the first country or company which pulls it off would open the doors to a future where we don’t need to rip up earth to obtain all the rare stuff we need for high tech industry. And with huge amounts of asteroids being in the belts in our solar system, a practically inexhaustible supply too.

    • @AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      8
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It is exciting but what’s the market? It’s hard to see this being at all a reasonable cost having to bring it back to Earth, especially unrefined, and it’s hard to imagine it not being worse than current mining, given the flight back to Earth, especially if refining is still on Earth

      On the other hand I’m more excited over mining regolith and water. Such simple things, but will be a huge difference in cost to maintain any off-world presence. Shelter, radiation control, rocket fuel, drinking and bathing, growing food : water and dirt are pretty basic, but just think of the sheer tonnage of supply missions launching from Earth it could replace

      • @Geek_King@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        51 year ago

        I think the real value is amount of rare metals that could be harvested, scientists have found an asteroid that is comprised mostly of metals. Scientists think it may be the exposed core of a proto planet:

        Metal asteroid Psyche has a ridiculously high ‘value.’ But what does that even mean?

        So that kind of haul could potentially be worth it, but smelting, refinement and processing would probably be more cost effective in space. Who knows what the future will bring, mining the asteroid belt may only make sense once we have a much strong presence in space, I.E., colonies on Mars, the Moon, etc etc.

    • @echo64@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -361 year ago

      This is a lot of exciting words to say “instead of digging up the effectively limitless amount of rock under our feet we can go into space to do it in the least efficient and most expensive way”

      It’s very cool, but I would rather we spend our time and resources on more pressing things, given we have the rocks right here.

      • @vmaziman@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        491 year ago

        I would agree if mining the rocks on earth didn’t cause ecological collapses and kill off animals and displace indigenous and exploit underprivileged ethnic classes in post colonial hellholes

        • @vmaziman@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          131 year ago

          I’m sure mining in space will have its own problems but at least it can’t kill our biosphere

          • @schmidtster@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            51 year ago

            There’s been studies that have found metal particles in the atmosphere, so anything entering and exiting are seemingly shedding particles.

            So it’s likely to cause issues down the road unfortunately.

            • Neshura
              link
              fedilink
              English
              11 year ago

              I’ll take the issue down the road over the one already in my doorstep any time of the week.

              Atmospheric pollution is at least something that seems fixable with extraterrestrial resources. Ruined biospheres due to mining on earth seems less avoidable/fixable unless we go back to pre-industrial living standards.

              • @schmidtster@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                31 year ago

                How would it be fixable? The more stuff entering and exiting the atmosphere, the more particles. The particles aren’t from manufacturing on earth from what I read.

                • Neshura
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  -21 year ago

                  Particles we can bind with chemical reactions (like ad-blu for diesel engines), would be expensive and we would need to be careful to select chemical reactions that actually solve the problem but fundamentally it’s a fixable problem.

                  • @schmidtster@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    2
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    Right, so by adding more chemicals, causing more unknown issues, we can fix an unknown issue. Which we would need to strip earth for even more to get to be able to use.

                    Makes total sense!

              • @AA5B@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                11 year ago

                How. Ruined biosphere from mining affects many discrete places that can be cleaned up, in theory. Messing up the atmosphere affects all biospheres, is much more vast, and we have to breathe in the meantime

                Look at current mining - true crimes against the environment in specific places but do not directly impact most humans. Could you say that about messing up the atmosphere?

                • FaceDeer
                  link
                  fedilink
                  11 year ago

                  Isn’t one of the current hot topics among environmentalists carbon capture, which is “cleaning up” the atmosphere as a whole?

                  • @shottymcb@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    11 year ago

                    The only thing carbon capture cleans up is CO2, and it’s not remotely feasible because it would require orders of magnitude more energy than the entire planet consumes even if it were 100% efficient, which it isn’t close to being.

          • Allseer
            link
            fedilink
            English
            31 year ago

            the asteroid belt is like a protective barrier. if earth’s orbit was on a flat surface the belt would be on it too. this imaginary plane is where earth is most likely to collide with extraterrestrial objects. so if it was possible to reduce the asteroid belt to half its current mass, earth would technically be more vulnerable to collisions along our orbital path. it’s not the biggest threat but i felt the need to explain that.

      • @lolcatnip@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        231 year ago

        Rocks ≠ ore. There are numerous materials (e.g. lithium) for the total known deposits on Earth won’t cover more than a few decades’ worth of projected demand, and even then, the mining process is an environmental disaster. Asteroid mining is a long-term project that will require huge advances in multiple fields, but it addresses a real need.

        • @echo64@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -3
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          known deposits. There’s functionally endless amounts of all elements we need on earth. And there is zero need to go mine asteroids at a truely astronomical cost of efficiency.

          • @A_A@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            1
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I said mostly the same thing as you in (my own words) elsewhere inside this post. Most people don’t want to see this reality.

            So, maybe this is a business opportunity : to attract investment and then face investors with hard facts. Of course we write the contract so that, after this, we just keep their stupid money.

            Edit : Oops ! I just read your other comment :

            you’ll also see (…) investment scams

            And so I realize you were thinking along these lines already. (although my statement was much more cynical)

      • FaceDeer
        link
        fedilink
        171 year ago

        If it’s truly the “least efficient and most expensive way” of mining then you have no reason to be the slightest bit worried, it won’t get done in that case. Obviously.

        • @echo64@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -11 year ago

          This is true, but you’ll also see a lot of investment scams by internet famous people, like funding a space company on the lies of Mars colonies

          • FaceDeer
            link
            fedilink
            21 year ago

            SpaceX is a private company, it’s not taking investment from internet people.

            Furthermore, its Mars goals are IMO the least revolutionary part of what the Starship program is working toward.

            • @echo64@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              21 year ago

              Investment scams from internet people. And I said scam like promising Mars colonization. I did not use the term revolutionary. Scam.

      • qyron
        link
        fedilink
        English
        31 year ago

        I can imagine a sort of a conveyor belt made of miniature cargo vessel with one robotized mining station at one end, cutting away an asteroid piece by piece, and a cargo dock at the Earth side.

        With enough cargo vessels deployed, let’s say one would arrive at each end everyother day, the moment the conveyor belt was full, the mining operation would be swift.

        Assuming a global deal between nations could be struck to have a refinery or at least a cargo dock placed on the moon, to organize large cargos to come to Earth at programmed intervals, it could prove to be a very interesting endeavour.

        Raw matterials price could drop, given the sheer available volume.

        At least it sounds like a diferent sci-fi plot