How long will the human race survive and why?

[Wayne Mack]

I also doubt the economic viability of lunar or other extraterrestrial mining. I see at least three steps necessary to get to usable raw materials: mining, transport, and refinement.

Mining would need to be automated through intelligent robots. The robots would need to be able to identify locations for a mine and then coordinate mining. The robots would also need to have a high energy fuel source. An array of solar panels and rechargeable batteries around the mining site might be plausible, but would require additional transportation expense, perhaps more than the robots themselves. Probably another fuel source maybe needed. Using robotics avoids the cost of creating a viable, sustainable biosphere and continuing to replenish it as materials are inevitably lost.

Once mined, the ore needs to be refined. This could be done at the mining site, in near Earth orbit, or on Earth. On site would minimize transportation costs as none of the waste material would need to be shipped. This, however, would require establishment of another high-energy usage facility. The facility would need to be mobile or at least torn down and reassembled as mining locations change. If the refinery was in near Earth orbit, there would be slightly higher transportation costs, but the raw ore would only need to be moved from a lower gravity location and only refined material would need to face reentry to Earth. Transport vehicles between the mines and the refinery could be lower cost and not need to endure the rigors of lifting off from and returning to Earth. An on Earth refinery would avoid the costs of maintaining an orbital one, but would require a stream of larger transport vehicles lifting off from Earth and returning to it.

Of course, as soon as one imagines automated mining equipment, on Earth mining also becomes more attractive.

 

[Justin Swanton]

If you want to know how lethal regolith is see here and here.

 

[Swank]

OK, I read the articles. Bottom line: nothing on the Moon could be mined more cheaply than simply mining it on Earth. Not even titanium despite being in concentrations 10 times greater than on Earth. Once you factor in the enormous cost of getting mining machinery and humans to the lunar surface, maintaining them there and getting the mined products safely back to Earth, you have thrown profit out the window. Nobody will do it as a business. Money is a cruel destroyer of dreams....

Mined and then put in orbit? Much cheaper than starting on earth.

 

[Justin Swanton]

The Put in Orbit and Getting onto the Earth in One Piece is where the problems start.

 

[Cthulhu.Science]

Not really a digression since we're exploring the option of making mankind a multi-planet species as a way of avoiding the eventual demise of life on Earth.

Keeping an average of 6 astronauts alive in LEO is, as you say, a miracle. It's also a huge expense. The ISS cost $150 billion to build. It costs $3 billion per year to maintain (that's NASA's figures). The crew are protected from solar flares and Cosmic radiation by Earth's magnetic field; if the ISS was moved, say, to a lunar orbit, the crews would soon contract cancer and die.

Keeping people alive in LEO is something we've done since 1960, and always at great expense. We simply cannot afford to do more. That's the brick wall for manned spaceflight (bar the odd brief foray further afield). A moonbase for example would have to be dug underground to create shielding for the crew - you can't just plonk a prefab habitat on the surface. Then there's the huge problem of regolith that destroys human lungs over a not-so-long period of time (the astronauts on the Moon all acquired breathing problems during their stay). And what do you do on the Moon? Where's the payback? First line of defence against aliens?

These are all important technical difficulties near term. I predict that in the next 500 years they will all be solved.

The children of that future time will read of the histories and giggle about our current hand wringing about all of these problems the same way that we, as children, giggled that ancient mariners were afraid to sail out of view of a shoreline. Big strong men afraid of a little dust.

So, if our species survives 500 years, and if planet Earth is still inhabitable in 500 years, what will be the next challenge for mankind?

 

[Cthulhu.Science]

I also doubt the economic viability of lunar or other extraterrestrial mining. I see at least three steps necessary to get to usable raw materials: mining, transport, and refinement.

Mining would need to be automated through intelligent robots. The robots would need to be able to identify locations for a mine and then coordinate mining. The robots would also need to have a high energy fuel source. An array of solar panels and rechargeable batteries around the mining site might be plausible, but would require additional transportation expense, perhaps more than the robots themselves. Probably another fuel source maybe needed. Using robotics avoids the cost of creating a viable, sustainable biosphere and continuing to replenish it as materials are inevitably lost.

Once mined, the ore needs to be refined. This could be done at the mining site, in near Earth orbit, or on Earth. On site would minimize transportation costs as none of the waste material would need to be shipped. This, however, would require establishment of another high-energy usage facility. The facility would need to be mobile or at least torn down and reassembled as mining locations change. If the refinery was in near Earth orbit, there would be slightly higher transportation costs, but the raw ore would only need to be moved from a lower gravity location and only refined material would need to face reentry to Earth. Transport vehicles between the mines and the refinery could be lower cost and not need to endure the rigors of lifting off from and returning to Earth. An on Earth refinery would avoid the costs of maintaining an orbital one, but would require a stream of larger transport vehicles lifting off from Earth and returning to it.

Of course, as soon as one imagines automated mining equipment, on Earth mining also becomes more attractive.

At least one group of engineers and investors believes industry in space is viable with current technology. Varda Industries.
--- And who among us thought that it would be Weyland Industries that got the early lead?

Now there is a factory in space

Varda Space Industries launched its first in-orbit manufacturing spacecraft on board a SpaceX's Falcon 9 rocket. The spacecraft is designed to produce pharmaceutical drugs in orbit.

www.warpnews.org

 

[BAYLOR]

The Put in Orbit and Getting onto the Earth in One Piece is where the problems start.

Some type reentry vehicle with a large carrying capacity and a robust heat shield and powerful rocket engines for landing purposes. And any mining operation like would require a chain space stations to assist in getting the vehicles ?

 

[Justin Swanton]

Some type reentry vehicle with a large carrying capacity and a robust heat shield and powerful rocket engines for landing purposes. And any mining operation like would require a chain space stations to assist in getting the vehicles ?

OK. So a reentry vehicle that has to be about as complex as any spacecraft that has to do reentry. How much will it cost compared to the value of its cargo? Suppose we make it reusable. You still have to get it back in orbit to be reused. How much for the launch? Bear in mind that in anything to do with space travel your costing is done in millions, not thousands or hundreds of thousands.

Best case scenario: somebody finds tons and tons of diamonds somewhere. The diamonds are initially worth the cost of getting them back to Earth. They flood the market and the price of diamonds crashes. They are now no longer worth the cost. Any cargo with a practical use won't be worth the trouble of bringing to Earth in the first place.

I really can't see this working from an economics POV.

 

[Pyan]

You don’t need a re-entry rocket for cargo. Build a mass-driver on the Moon, add a basic control package on the cargo, and fire it into the middle of the Pacific.*


*copyright 1966, RAH.

 

[Swank]

OK. So a reentry vehicle that has to be about as complex as any spacecraft that has to do reentry. How much will it cost compared to the value of its cargo? Suppose we make it reusable. You still have to get it back in orbit to be reused. How much for the launch? Bear in mind that in anything to do with space travel your costing is done in millions, not thousands or hundreds of thousands.

Best case scenario: somebody finds tons and tons of diamonds somewhere. The diamonds are initially worth the cost of getting them back to Earth. They flood the market and the price of diamonds crashes. They are now no longer worth the cost. Any cargo with a practical use won't be worth the trouble of bringing to Earth in the first place.

I really can't see this working from an economics POV.

We don't need a lot of raw materials on earth. One time heat shields for finished products are easily made of lunar iron, which will also serve to get them off the moon via magnetic mass driver.


Processing iron and aluminum in a vacuum is probably pretty easy since you don't have oxygen or nitrogen getting into anything.

 

[Justin Swanton]

You don’t need a re-entry rocket for cargo. Build a mass-driver on the Moon, add a basic control package on the cargo, and fire it into the middle of the Pacific.*


*copyright 1966, RAH.

Mmmmh. How do you stop it burning up in the atmosphere? How do you find it in the Pacific? How do you recover it?

 

[paranoid marvin]

We have enough raw materials on Earth - if used effectively - to last a very, very long time. With renewable technologies perhaps indefinitely. No doubt there are benefits to conducting experiments, and sampling soil samples etc on other planets, just as there are doing similar near the Poles. The difference is that the risk factor is far lower on Earth, but more importantly the costs are far lower.

It's sad to say it, but sending humans to Mars anytime in the forseeable future just isn't worth it -in terms of the risk factor and in the cost of undertaking a mission. We've sent machines there, and no doubt in time we will send bigger and better machines that will perform equally and probably better than any human could.

Sending people to Mars is more of a prestige thing; humans saying look what is possible - look what we humans are capable of. In much the same way that scaling Everest was, or journeying for the first time to the Poles. As humans one of our better traits is to explore and to challenge our minds and bodies to things that were previously thought impossible. But there is a world of difference between teams of people risking their lives in the name of glory to scale a mountain, and in a government spending billions, and having to continue spending billions, in order to send a group of people potentially to their doom - for no real reason.

Which is really sad, because Moon bases and Mars bases are things I dreamed of as a kid, and hoped (probably more expected) to see realise in my adulthood.

 

[paranoid marvin]

Common sense skeptic does a good analysis of the problems of sending even a few astronauts to Mars, never mind colonising it. One problem is shielding: a minimum of 3 feet of water or equivalent is necessary to protect astronauts from Cosmic radiation (so they don't come back to Earth in body bags). That would equate to about 500 extra tons on Musk's starship which puts it immediately out the running.

Another problem is artificial gravity: you have to have it for a 2-year trip. Or reach Mars after 6 months' weightlessness and see that first step turn into an embarrassing collapse as the astronaut will be too weak to stand.

There was a race to the Moon until someone realised that costs and the risk factors involved meant that any possible returns just weren't worth it. Times that by a factor of 10,000 for Mars.

 

[Swank]

Mmmmh. How do you stop it burning up in the atmosphere? How do you find it in the Pacific? How do you recover it?

Like how every other capsule reenters and is recovered.

 

[Justin Swanton]

Like how every other capsule reenters and is recovered.

Every other capsule has parachutes and a flotation belt both of which must survive reentry hence a good heat shield. That's already a hefty price tag, especially for a once-off.

 

[Pyan]

Mmmmh. How do you stop it burning up in the atmosphere? How do you find it in the Pacific? How do you recover it?

Details. If we need the engineering, I'm sure we'll develop the engineering.

 

[Wayne Mack]

Here is a quick calculation on the quantities of ore that can be returned to Earth. The space shuttle had a cargo capacity of 25,060 kg or 55,250 lbs. A large dump truck has a capacity of 12,700 kg or 28,000 lbs, approximately half of the space shuttle. A space shuttle flight costs $450 million. Does delivering two dump truck loads of ore justify the cost of a shuttle flight?

References:

Shuttle technical facts

The Space Transportation System (STS) is the formal name of NASA’s Space Shuttle, consisting of an aircraft-like orbiter, two boosters and a huge external tank.

www.esa.int

Space Shuttle - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

https://www.lynchtruckcenter.com/manufacturer-information/how-much-can-a-dump-truck-carry/

 

[Justin Swanton]

Details. If we need the engineering, I'm sure we'll develop the engineering.

Sure we can, but the big, big problem is that we can't develop engineering that is cheap. The further we push manipulation of the laws of physics the more difficult and expensive it becomes and there's no way around that fact. One man can can train a horse, build a cart and travel at about 6km/h for an indefinite distance. One man can't build a car. That takes several men. Several men can't build a spacecraft. That takes a huge corporation with a huge budget that can be funded only from the bottomless well of taxpayer money - and that includes Musk. He is a NASA subcontractor. If NASA doesn't foot the bill using government money then Musk doesn't get to put anyone in space. These are the natural brick walls to technology. Theoretically we can push the boundaries indefinitely, but in practice the cost of doing so eventually becomes just too prohibitive. That's what killed supersonic commercial flight: it cost too much to be economically viable (the Concorde was always subsidized).

I mentioned earlier that transport tech ceilinged out about 60 years ago. A car is meant to take you from A to B, quickly and affordably. That's its primary objective, anything else is incidental. Looking at the numbers, cars have been doing that at about the same cost for performance ratio for decades (keep in mind petrol was cheaper then so there wasn't such a need for fuel efficient engines). Even the humble Model T did as well as any modern car with the same pricetag. In fact the only modern car as cheap as the Model T was the Tata Nano and its overall performance was roughly equivalent: a little faster but higher on maintenance, and less adapted to off-road performance which the Model T was designed for. Fuel consumption incidentally was the same. Commercial subsonic air travel: speed and travelling time hasn't changed much since the 1950s (actually it's slower now). Economies of scale have made it cheaper but that's not a development in technology.

I think people are slowly waking up to the fact that most of the big brick walls have been reached. What we're largely doing now is crossing Ts and dotting Is. Sure, information and communication tech have advanced dramatically since the 90s but to what extent has that physically improved our lives? There's one area where strides continue to be made and that's in the field of medicine, but I don't know if progress is slower now than it was a few decades ago. Certainly medicine has become expensive.

 

[Cthulhu.Science]

I'm still lost. So, will humanity survive another 5,000 years

1. Only if we make mining space cost effective.
2. Even if we don't make mining space cost effective.
3. We are all doomed because with current technology mining space isn't cost effective.

 

[Justin Swanton]

I'm still lost. So, will humanity survive another 5,000 years

1. Only if we make mining space cost effective.
2. Even if we don't make mining space cost effective.
3. We are all doomed because with current technology mining space isn't cost effective.

2. We tend to forget that humanity managed a very stable existence before the Industrial Revolution. Sure it wasn't a techno-industrial paradise but neither is the present.