MARS colonization or MINING in cosmos

[funkenstein]

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  

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. 

[1715165318]

1715165318

[Oppolee]

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  

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]

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  

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.

[funkenstein]

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  

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.



 

[ovvidiy]

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  

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]

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  

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

[Spendulus]

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  

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

theres no cosmos cos we live inside the Earth 

[st0nefish]

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]

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!

[Cherry Girl]

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]

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...

[SameHow]

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]

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?