Bitcoin Forum
October 17, 2017, 08:45:00 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.0.1  [Torrent]. (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: MARS colonization or MINING in cosmos  (Read 1867 times)
funkenstein
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 968


Khazad ai-menu!


View Profile WWW
February 01, 2017, 02:39:30 PM
 #21

Take a look at the costs, you'll find it's absurd. 

Going up and down the gravity well is expensive as all hell.  You'll never make that back no matter what you find on Ceres or the Moon.  Even if it were already stacked in refined bars waiting for you to pick them up!! 

OK as a fully subsidized mission with no profitability other than a technology subsidy, sure.  But as a proper business?  No way. 

At least not until we get that space elevator built Wink 



There are several projects to build a space elevator until 2050.
I think cost estimates were around 50-100 billion $ with usage of graphene or similar super materials.

It's hard to put a cost estimate on something that doesn't exist.  No material has been found which has anywhere near the required strength to weight ratio. 

"Give me control over a coin's checkpoints and I care not who mines its blocks."
http://vtscc.org
1508273100
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508273100

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508273100
Reply with quote  #2

1508273100
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1508273100
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508273100

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508273100
Reply with quote  #2

1508273100
Report to moderator
1508273100
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508273100

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508273100
Reply with quote  #2

1508273100
Report to moderator
Oppolee
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 288



View Profile
February 01, 2017, 02:43:56 PM
 #22

Take a look at the costs, you'll find it's absurd. 

Going up and down the gravity well is expensive as all hell.  You'll never make that back no matter what you find on Ceres or the Moon.  Even if it were already stacked in refined bars waiting for you to pick them up!! 

OK as a fully subsidized mission with no profitability other than a technology subsidy, sure.  But as a proper business?  No way. 

At least not until we get that space elevator built Wink 



There are several projects to build a space elevator until 2050.
I think cost estimates were around 50-100 billion $ with usage of graphene or similar super materials.

It's hard to put a cost estimate on something that doesn't exist.  No material has been found which has anywhere near the required strength to weight ratio. 
I do not believe in such global projects. Still can't ensure the wide dissemination of technologies to make available the energy. It is less costly and more pragmatic and realistic projects.
criptix
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1316



View Profile
February 02, 2017, 05:01:30 PM
 #23

Take a look at the costs, you'll find it's absurd. 

Going up and down the gravity well is expensive as all hell.  You'll never make that back no matter what you find on Ceres or the Moon.  Even if it were already stacked in refined bars waiting for you to pick them up!! 

OK as a fully subsidized mission with no profitability other than a technology subsidy, sure.  But as a proper business?  No way. 

At least not until we get that space elevator built Wink 



There are several projects to build a space elevator until 2050.
I think cost estimates were around 50-100 billion $ with usage of graphene or similar super materials.

It's hard to put a cost estimate on something that doesn't exist.  No material has been found which has anywhere near the required strength to weight ratio. 

This is wrong. Super materials that have a a high enough tensile strength already exist.
One of them is graphen. With a taper ratio of 1 and at GEO (around 36.000 km) the burden on graphen would only reach 87% of its tensile strength.

Edit the energy balance sheet of a space elevator doesnt have to be negative.
You could use gravity on the way to back to earth to recollect the energy needed to move the elevator upwards.

           ▄▄███████▄▄
        ▄███▀▀
▄▄▄▄    ▀▄
     ▄▄█████████████▄▄  ▀▄
  ▄▀▀██▀           ▀▀██▄▄▀▄
▄▀  ██                 ▀██
  ██       ▀▀█▀▀         █
█▀        █ █ █        ▄█▀▄
▀▄         █ █ █       ▄█  █
 ██         █▄▄▄█      ▄█  ▄▀
  ██▄                ▄█▀  ▄▀
  ▀▄▀██▄▄          ▄█▀  ▄▀
   ▀▄ ▀▀███▄▄▄▄▄▄█████▀▀
     ▀▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
.UTRUST.▀████████▄
  ▀███████▄
    ▀██████▄
      ▀██████
       ▀█████
        ▀████▄
         █████
          ▀███
           ███
           ▀██
            ██
             █
             █
●  Download WHITEPAPER  ●
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ ▼ ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
facebook      twitter      slack
▀████████▄
  ▀███████▄
    ▀██████▄
      ▀██████
       ▀█████
        ▀████▄
         █████
          ▀███
           ███
           ▀██
            ██
             █
             █
funkenstein
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 968


Khazad ai-menu!


View Profile WWW
February 02, 2017, 06:18:25 PM
 #24

Take a look at the costs, you'll find it's absurd. 

Going up and down the gravity well is expensive as all hell.  You'll never make that back no matter what you find on Ceres or the Moon.  Even if it were already stacked in refined bars waiting for you to pick them up!! 

OK as a fully subsidized mission with no profitability other than a technology subsidy, sure.  But as a proper business?  No way. 

At least not until we get that space elevator built Wink 



There are several projects to build a space elevator until 2050.
I think cost estimates were around 50-100 billion $ with usage of graphene or similar super materials.

It's hard to put a cost estimate on something that doesn't exist.  No material has been found which has anywhere near the required strength to weight ratio. 

This is wrong. Super materials that have a a high enough tensile strength already exist.
One of them is graphen. With a taper ratio of 1 and at GEO (around 36.000 km) the burden on graphen would only reach 87% of its tensile strength.

Edit the energy balance sheet of a space elevator doesnt have to be negative.
You could use gravity on the way to back to earth to recollect the energy needed to move the elevator upwards.

Graphene ribbons might do the trick, sure.  Might.  But do you know how to make them?  Can you make them well enough to do so - to deploy them from a geostationary platform?  5000 miles of ribbon and have it hold not only its own weight but all the friction of the atmospheric drag?  I don't think we are to the point yet where a cost could be put on this.  That fact that people are trying to put "dollar" figures on the costs here kinda proves this point - they aren't talking sense.



 





"Give me control over a coin's checkpoints and I care not who mines its blocks."
http://vtscc.org
ovvidiy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 266



View Profile
February 02, 2017, 08:50:47 PM
 #25

Take a look at the costs, you'll find it's absurd. 

Going up and down the gravity well is expensive as all hell.  You'll never make that back no matter what you find on Ceres or the Moon.  Even if it were already stacked in refined bars waiting for you to pick them up!! 

OK as a fully subsidized mission with no profitability other than a technology subsidy, sure.  But as a proper business?  No way. 

At least not until we get that space elevator built Wink 



There are several projects to build a space elevator until 2050.
I think cost estimates were around 50-100 billion $ with usage of graphene or similar super materials.

It's hard to put a cost estimate on something that doesn't exist.  No material has been found which has anywhere near the required strength to weight ratio. 
Isn't it easier to do instead of the Elevator start from a space platform? I'm certainly no expert in these matters, but I do not believe in such projects. It seems to me that it just allows you to steal money from the budget.
BADecker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1456


View Profile
February 03, 2017, 01:28:56 AM
 #26

Take a look at the costs, you'll find it's absurd. 

Going up and down the gravity well is expensive as all hell.  You'll never make that back no matter what you find on Ceres or the Moon.  Even if it were already stacked in refined bars waiting for you to pick them up!! 

OK as a fully subsidized mission with no profitability other than a technology subsidy, sure.  But as a proper business?  No way. 

At least not until we get that space elevator built Wink 



There are several projects to build a space elevator until 2050.
I think cost estimates were around 50-100 billion $ with usage of graphene or similar super materials.

It's hard to put a cost estimate on something that doesn't exist.  No material has been found which has anywhere near the required strength to weight ratio. 
Isn't it easier to do instead of the Elevator start from a space platform? I'm certainly no expert in these matters, but I do not believe in such projects. It seems to me that it just allows you to steal money from the budget.

Space Platform by Murray Leinster

http://www.feedbooks.com/book/2431/space-platform

http://www.loyalbooks.com/book/Space-Platform-by-Murray-Leinster

Cool
Spendulus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
February 03, 2017, 01:32:07 AM
 #27

Take a look at the costs, you'll find it's absurd.  

Going up and down the gravity well is expensive as all hell.  You'll never make that back no matter what you find on Ceres or the Moon.  Even if it were already stacked in refined bars waiting for you to pick them up!!  

OK as a fully subsidized mission with no profitability other than a technology subsidy, sure.  But as a proper business?  No way.  

At least not until we get that space elevator built Wink  



There are several projects to build a space elevator until 2050.
I think cost estimates were around 50-100 billion $ with usage of graphene or similar super materials.

It's hard to put a cost estimate on something that doesn't exist.  No material has been found which has anywhere near the required strength to weight ratio.  

This is wrong. Super materials that have a a high enough tensile strength already exist.
One of them is graphen. With a taper ratio of 1 and at GEO (around 36.000 km) the burden on graphen would only reach 87% of its tensile strength.

Edit the energy balance sheet of a space elevator doesnt have to be negative.
You could use gravity on the way to back to earth to recollect the energy needed to move the elevator upwards.

Graphene ribbons might do the trick, sure.  Might.  But do you know how to make them?  Can you make them well enough to do so - to deploy them from a geostationary platform?  5000 miles of ribbon and have it hold not only its own weight but all the friction of the atmospheric drag?  I don't think we are to the point yet where a cost could be put on this.  That fact that people are trying to put "dollar" figures on the costs here kinda proves this point - they aren't talking sense.

All true but continued, steady funding for R&D on space elevators, that's like something everyone could agree on.  Those funding amounts would be very tiny compared to any estimates of costs for something like Mars projects.
teeneffigy
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98


View Profile
February 03, 2017, 08:23:25 PM
 #28

I think we need to figure out how to mine deeper within the earth itself. Right now we are only scratching the surface. What's the point of travelling to other planets/moons/asteroids if all we need is already here. We just need to figure out a more efficient way to extract it.

Once earth is mined out right past the crust then I think its time to mine other planets, maybe in a few thousand years.
st0nefish
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 182


View Profile
February 04, 2017, 11:15:36 PM
 #29

If humanity continues its life on other planets, it must do so with the resources of the planet it will go to. It does not make much sense to live on other planets by adhering to the resources of the world.

3D printers can be a solution in the future. We know which elements the elements we need come to fruition. We can find suitable elements and produce on other planets.

It does not matter whether it's mars or another planets. The important thing is to be able to survive using the resources of that planet.

Spendulus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
February 04, 2017, 11:20:37 PM
 #30

If humanity continues its life on other planets, it must do so with the resources of the planet it will go to. It does not make much sense to live on other planets by adhering to the resources of the world.

3D printers can be a solution in the future. We know which elements the elements we need come to fruition. We can find suitable elements and produce on other planets.

It does not matter whether it's mars or another planets. The important thing is to be able to survive using the resources of that planet.
This is correct, although it's unlikely we will be able to do things like build a laptop computer from local materials anywhere but Earth.  So there will be a stream of export goods from Earth, basically forever.
killyou73
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 78

★777Coin.com★ Fun BTC Casino!


View Profile
February 04, 2017, 11:59:22 PM
 #31

If humanity continues its life on other planets, it must do so with the resources of the planet it will go to. It does not make much sense to live on other planets by adhering to the resources of the world.

3D printers can be a solution in the future. We know which elements the elements we need come to fruition. We can find suitable elements and produce on other planets.

It does not matter whether it's mars or another planets. The important thing is to be able to survive using the resources of that planet.
This is correct, although it's unlikely we will be able to do things like build a laptop computer from local materials anywhere but Earth.  So there will be a stream of export goods from Earth, basically forever.

That's not true, Mars could be colonized to be better than Earth.

For example, in the 1600s, could you go to the store and purchase items? Well that depends where you are, if you are in north America the answer is probably no, but if you are in England the answer is yes.

In 100 years technology advanced so quickly , 1900-2000. I do not think that it is a far cry to say that Mars will be colonized by 2100.

It only makes sense that if there are say 50million people living on Mars that their would be industries to make it a self supporting planet.

DD-Lex
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 135



View Profile
February 05, 2017, 12:17:22 AM
 #32

If humanity continues its life on other planets, it must do so with the resources of the planet it will go to. It does not make much sense to live on other planets by adhering to the resources of the world.

3D printers can be a solution in the future. We know which elements the elements we need come to fruition. We can find suitable elements and produce on other planets.

It does not matter whether it's mars or another planets. The important thing is to be able to survive using the resources of that planet.
This is correct, although it's unlikely we will be able to do things like build a laptop computer from local materials anywhere but Earth.  So there will be a stream of export goods from Earth, basically forever.
How do you imagine survival on Mars using local resources? Can you believe this? I'm not saying that we need some means of production. You know that expression : "life is not stored"?
bohr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364


Enjin Coin - Smart Cryptocurrency for Gaming.


View Profile
February 05, 2017, 03:56:24 AM
 #33

Hello,

I personally think that we have to develop more further resource extraction from space. Mars, moon, comet mining for resource would get us more money Cheesy

I'm looking forward to hear from you what is more important:

Colonizing MARS or Mining the resources in cosmos?

Kind Regards,
Eventually mining space operations may be a possibility but there must be economically viable if it is not then there is not much of a point to even think about it.

DarkElf
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 16


View Profile
February 05, 2017, 04:58:53 AM
 #34

theres no cosmos cos we live inside the Earth  Tongue
st0nefish
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 182


View Profile
February 08, 2017, 09:55:38 AM
 #35

If humanity continues its life on other planets, it must do so with the resources of the planet it will go to. It does not make much sense to live on other planets by adhering to the resources of the world.

3D printers can be a solution in the future. We know which elements the elements we need come to fruition. We can find suitable elements and produce on other planets.

It does not matter whether it's mars or another planets. The important thing is to be able to survive using the resources of that planet.
This is correct, although it's unlikely we will be able to do things like build a laptop computer from local materials anywhere but Earth.  So there will be a stream of export goods from Earth, basically forever.
How do you imagine survival on Mars using local resources? Can you believe this? I'm not saying that we need some means of production. You know that expression : "life is not stored"?

The important thing is to be able to find suitable elements.
All of the devices we use have some raw materials. Even artificial organs can be produced with 3D printer. There's even a house built with 3D printer.
The biggest problem is to meet our energy needs. Nuclear energy can be used for this. Of course security is a very important factor.

tuvok007
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 798



View Profile
February 08, 2017, 05:49:41 PM
 #36

We will see a couple of companies in this half of century colonizing Mars and mining asteroids,The owner(s) of that company (ies) will be first ever trillionaire!  Forget about billionaires, we will see a first trillionaire in the next 30 years.That person is alive now and thats probably Elon Musk!


████████████
██████████
█████████████
██████████████
██████████████████
███████████████████
███████████████████
███████████████████
███████████████
██████████████████
█████████████████████
██████████████████████
███████████████████████
███████████████████████
███████████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████
█████████████████
█████████████████
████████████████
████████████████
████████████████
███████████████
███████████████
██████████████
██████████████
███████████
███████████
███████████
████████████

.
|
.
ANN
BOUNTY
WEBSITE
]
[/cen
Cherry Girl
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112


View Profile
February 08, 2017, 05:58:08 PM
 #37

We will see a couple of companies in this half of century colonizing Mars and mining asteroids,The owner(s) of that company (ies) will be first ever trillionaire!  Forget about billionaires, we will see a first trillionaire in the next 30 years.That person is alive now and thats probably Elon Musk!
He better start producing not expensive alternative technologies. He promises that there would be Autonomous technology which allows to provide energy to the house, but I don't see them. Tesla is also very expensive.
tuvok007
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 798



View Profile
February 08, 2017, 06:21:12 PM
 #38

We will see a couple of companies in this half of century colonizing Mars and mining asteroids,The owner(s) of that company (ies) will be first ever trillionaire!  Forget about billionaires, we will see a first trillionaire in the next 30 years.That person is alive now and thats probably Elon Musk!
He better start producing not expensive alternative technologies. He promises that there would be Autonomous technology which allows to provide energy to the house, but I don't see them. Tesla is also very expensive.

But you cant expect to achieve what he promised over night or two-three years!  Thats decades of hard work,thousands and thousand of engineers, thousands of trys and hundreds of failures........ dosent happen over night...


████████████
██████████
█████████████
██████████████
██████████████████
███████████████████
███████████████████
███████████████████
███████████████
██████████████████
█████████████████████
██████████████████████
███████████████████████
███████████████████████
███████████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████
█████████████████
█████████████████
████████████████
████████████████
████████████████
███████████████
███████████████
██████████████
██████████████
███████████
███████████
███████████
████████████

.
|
.
ANN
BOUNTY
WEBSITE
]
[/cen
SameHow
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 111


View Profile
February 08, 2017, 07:47:26 PM
 #39

We will see a couple of companies in this half of century colonizing Mars and mining asteroids,The owner(s) of that company (ies) will be first ever trillionaire!  Forget about billionaires, we will see a first trillionaire in the next 30 years.That person is alive now and thats probably Elon Musk!
He better start producing not expensive alternative technologies. He promises that there would be Autonomous technology which allows to provide energy to the house, but I don't see them. Tesla is also very expensive.

But you cant expect to achieve what he promised over night or two-three years!  Thats decades of hard work,thousands and thousand of engineers, thousands of trys and hundreds of failures........ dosent happen over night...
It seems to me that everything is much easier. Elon musk tries to create new technology. Maybe it would make sense to announce a competition in the world. A lot of people have this problem but I have no money for promotion. Maybe it's faster?
darkangel11
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 826


View Profile
February 08, 2017, 09:43:03 PM
 #40

Musk is making money, all that talk how he wants to change the world is just for the press, to create an image of an inventor out of him. Every big computer hardware company is full of such investors, the difference is there are projects that can be sold for loads of money and projects that we all end up using for free or buying at a store for $99,95. What is more important for a typical person? A faster PC, or a wall battery that costs a small fortune to install and maintain and all it gives you is the false sense of going green and off grid?

Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!