open All Channels
seplocked Out of Pod Experience
blankseplocked Do you think that the world should move to a space economy now?
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Author Topic

caka ringrawer
Posted - 2010.05.19 17:36:00 - [1]
 

Do you think that the world should move to a space economy now?
With the idea of space mining,and a vacuum manufacturing environment...do you guys think that the best thing for the world economy is space?

I believe that using space elevators is the best way... to get into space cheaply...do you guys think that's true?

snaike
Blue Republic
Posted - 2010.05.19 17:45:00 - [2]
 

My own reckoning is that first we need to get to much better grips with a new source of power and propulsion. Once we can get into space a bit easier and more efficiently, then I should imagine that interest and investment would follow.

caka ringrawer
Posted - 2010.05.19 18:18:00 - [3]
 

USA wanted a atomic power engine in a rocket at one time,and one in a bomber also

SupaKudoRio
Posted - 2010.05.19 19:06:00 - [4]
 

Once fusion technology is perfected, I expect the real rush into space for resources and manufacturing will begin.

Using space elevators would be one way, but it would be a gigantic investment. I think it's more likely something similar to aircraft catapults will be used, in conjunction with jet or rocket propulsion (most likely rocket, as jets stop functioning in space).

Zyck
Greater Order Of Destruction
Black Legion.
Posted - 2010.05.19 19:57:00 - [5]
 

I think a space economy is a great idea when it's practical. As of this moment it's not. Maybe in another half century.

ReaperOfSly
Gallente
Underworld Protection Agency
South Pole Dancers
Posted - 2010.05.19 20:30:00 - [6]
 

There has to be a profitable reason to go there. There's no one person who can just decide "now the world is going to have a space based economy". When something profitable is found up there, that is when corporations will move to exploit it. As it stands, there's nothing useful in space that you can't get more cheaply on Earth.

Something Random
Gallente
The Barrow Boys
Posted - 2010.05.19 20:47:00 - [7]
 

Ive always envisioned a jet/rocket combination taking humans to a very large orbital station. There would be orbital tethers bringing up fuels and supplies.

From there the people would shuttle to a large base on the moon with facilities to launch much larger ships.

The people would then make there way to another moon that had the raw elements (gases, ores and materials) to mine for fuels and further construction and profit. The moon would be minimal atmosphere and gravity like ours to again launch larger ships - from that point the people would move to stations and outposts that had been created that were using some of the gas giants to perhaps scoop gaseous fuels to further reach out to mine and explore the solar system.

The problems are the large station. Proper jet/rocket combos (being worked on as we indulge). Materials strong enough for the quite epic stresses an orbital tether may have to endure. Oh, and the old Zero G. Large amounts of radiation may be a problem at small moons too.

Nice to daydream about this stuff though.

I honestly think ill be dead before they really do anything even remomtely corporate in deep space, orbital space maybe not.....

ReaperOfSly
Gallente
Underworld Protection Agency
South Pole Dancers
Posted - 2010.05.19 20:56:00 - [8]
 

Originally by: Something Random
I honestly think ill be dead before they really do anything even remomtely corporate in deep space, orbital space maybe not.....


Well in orbital space, we already have corporations doing stuff. Where do you think Sky TV comes from? Razz

Vogue
Short Bus Pole Dancers
Posted - 2010.05.19 21:01:00 - [9]
 

Well at the moment there is no real need for people in space AFAIK. There is the ISS but it has not producded any amazing new science. NASA and Russia still sending men into space is for national presteige. If there was an economic - business driver for people to do stuff in space at a profit then the European Space Agency would start putting people in space to do stuff. As would India, China and Japan.






Culmen
Caldari
Culmenation
Posted - 2010.05.19 21:35:00 - [10]
 

Edited by: Culmen on 19/05/2010 21:36:16
Originally by: SupaKudoRio

Using space elevators would be one way, but it would be a gigantic investment. I think it's more likely something similar to aircraft catapults will be used, in conjunction with jet or rocket propulsion (most likely rocket, as jets stop functioning in space).


Are you perhaps thinking of the Lofstrom Loop?

It's feasible with current technology and doesn't require us to be able to mass produce carbon nano-tubes, unlike a space elevator.

All we need is someone to cough up the billions of dollars to actually get it built.

Honestly, I think alot of the problems with these launch systems is that they need to be built on/near the equator. And none of the launch capable nations want to repeat the political stuff that went on with the Panama Canal.

Lt Forge
Pilots Of Honour
Aeternus.
Posted - 2010.05.19 23:21:00 - [11]
 


Culmen
Caldari
Culmenation
Posted - 2010.05.20 17:04:00 - [12]
 

Edited by: Culmen on 20/05/2010 17:09:39
Edited by: Culmen on 20/05/2010 17:04:50
Originally by: Lt Forge
I'll leave this here.
<big image>


This thing has nothing to do with the thread.

But I still love that image, it demonstrates that Atheist can be ignorant as well.
I mean, wow, Christianity could nerf development in China, India,The Middle East, Africa and The Pre-Colombian Americas from all the way in Europe!
Truely God Must Favor Only Europeans!

Caldari Citizen20090217
Posted - 2010.05.20 17:27:00 - [13]
 

Actually theres a few good reasons to go looting space for resources.

Heluium 3 offers cheap clean fusion. OK so theres along way to go on that but its there.

Better than that is asteroid mining. According to wikipedia (never was there a more reliable source)
...At today's prices, a relatively small metallic asteroid with a diameter of 1 mile contains more than $20 trillion US dollars worth of industrial and precious metals...

20 trillion.

trillion

Estimates of all the USD in EXISTENCE top out at 8.3trillion.

Screw it I'm getting a hulk.

Vogue
Short Bus Pole Dancers
Posted - 2010.05.20 18:46:00 - [14]
 

Edited by: Vogue on 20/05/2010 18:56:45
Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.

Ore Mut
M.E.P.A.L.S. LLC.
Posted - 2010.05.20 18:49:00 - [15]
 

Edited by: Ore Mut on 20/05/2010 18:59:11
The problem is reliable transport and time in space. There are physical ramifications of prolonged zero gravity living on the human body. Namely, muscle atrophy and bone decay.

Currently no civilian company has been able to break Earth's gravitational pull with any piece of equipment.

If one could reliably enter space the next problem is the question of traveling for extended periods of time. That brings in many logistical questions.

I propose that someone will develop a method of warping space with specific and powerful electromagnetic fields. Creating a bridge of relative space between two points. Current propulsion then could be used to travel within the solar system with ease.

I also propose that mining operations will be mainly be conducted with a resupply satellite orbiting a planet/moon while goods will be supplied to planets surfaces via atmosphere re-entry air drops (I'll coin the word Astro Drops).

To answer the first question in regards to time line I would say no. First because of our limited technology, second because we currently do not use Earth's resources at their fullest. If we can't develop the technology to brave the strongest elements (poles, tundras) here on earth without huge environmental impact then we have no industrial business in space.

Ella C'Tronix
Posted - 2010.05.20 19:55:00 - [16]
 

Originally by: caka ringrawer
Do you think that the world should move to a space economy now?
With the idea of space mining,and a vacuum manufacturing environment...do you guys think that the best thing for the world economy is space?

I believe that using space elevators is the best way... to get into space cheaply...do you guys think that's true?


There's no economy except for that which is tangible.
Right now, everything is so niche... it's hard for investors to get excited about ideas and promises until they actually see something.

stoicfaux
Gallente
Posted - 2010.05.20 21:44:00 - [17]
 

We would need a cheap, reliable means to get stuff into orbit, a faster method of space travel (carrying fuel is expensive,) and once we did, some nihilist cult would send a ship out, turn it around and then crash it into the Earth after accelerating to a non-trivial percentage of the speed of light and wipe out most of civilization.


digitalwanderer
Gallente
DF0 incorporated
Posted - 2010.05.20 22:15:00 - [18]
 

Edited by: digitalwanderer on 20/05/2010 22:42:14
Originally by: ReaperOfSly
There has to be a profitable reason to go there. There's no one person who can just decide "now the world is going to have a space based economy". When something profitable is found up there, that is when corporations will move to exploit it. As it stands, there's nothing useful in space that you can't get more cheaply on Earth.



Not quite true there,as there are things you want in our solar system,but it's expensive to get it with current technology:

1:Helium 3 on the moon,which there's tons of it on the surface since the moon doesn't have an atmosphere,and helium 3 can be used to power fusion reactors for instance.

2:Here's a moon around saturn i think,that pretty much entire made up of natural gas in a liquid state,so that can also be used for power generation purposes for the next several centuries,as the amounts in question vastly exceed the oil and gas reserves on earth.

3:Frozen water exists on several moons,and we're going to need that water as the earth's population continues to grow,and there only so much of the stuff to go around on earth.


There's more examples if you look at the composition of the planets and moons in our own solar system,so it's not a matter of if we need to usse them,but when we'll need to.

Frank Corncob
Posted - 2010.05.21 01:28:00 - [19]
 

Originally by: digitalwanderer
Edited by: digitalwanderer on 20/05/2010 22:42:14
Originally by: ReaperOfSly
There has to be a profitable reason to go there. There's no one person who can just decide "now the world is going to have a space based economy". When something profitable is found up there, that is when corporations will move to exploit it. As it stands, there's nothing useful in space that you can't get more cheaply on Earth.



Not quite true there,as there are things you want in our solar system,but it's expensive to get it with current technology:

1:Helium 3 on the moon,which there's tons of it on the surface since the moon doesn't have an atmosphere,and helium 3 can be used to power fusion reactors for instance.

2:Here's a moon around saturn i think,that pretty much entire made up of natural gas in a liquid state,so that can also be used for power generation purposes for the next several centuries,as the amounts in question vastly exceed the oil and gas reserves on earth.

3:Frozen water exists on several moons,and we're going to need that water as the earth's population continues to grow,and there only so much of the stuff to go around on earth.


There's more examples if you look at the composition of the planets and moons in our own solar system,so it's not a matter of if we need to usse them,but when we'll need to.


The sun will explode before we run out of water. Assuming we don't kill ourselves first.

digitalwanderer
Gallente
DF0 incorporated
Posted - 2010.05.21 02:12:00 - [20]
 

Originally by: Frank Corncob
Originally by: digitalwanderer
Edited by: digitalwanderer on 20/05/2010 22:42:14
Originally by: ReaperOfSly
There has to be a profitable reason to go there. There's no one person who can just decide "now the world is going to have a space based economy". When something profitable is found up there, that is when corporations will move to exploit it. As it stands, there's nothing useful in space that you can't get more cheaply on Earth.



Not quite true there,as there are things you want in our solar system,but it's expensive to get it with current technology:

1:Helium 3 on the moon,which there's tons of it on the surface since the moon doesn't have an atmosphere,and helium 3 can be used to power fusion reactors for instance.

2:Here's a moon around saturn i think,that pretty much entire made up of natural gas in a liquid state,so that can also be used for power generation purposes for the next several centuries,as the amounts in question vastly exceed the oil and gas reserves on earth.

3:Frozen water exists on several moons,and we're going to need that water as the earth's population continues to grow,and there only so much of the stuff to go around on earth.


There's more examples if you look at the composition of the planets and moons in our own solar system,so it's not a matter of if we need to usse them,but when we'll need to.


The sun will explode before we run out of water. Assuming we don't kill ourselves first.



Remember,by water,i meant the fresh drinkable variety which is only a very small percentage overall,not the one in the oceans themselves,which in any case,is needed to control the weather on the planet itself.

We can have recycling programs,and can and should be environmentally friendly to gain more time,but sooner or later,resources start becoming pretty thin,especially if certain experts predictions come true,and by 2050,we could be 10 billion people living on the planet.

That's 3 billion more people that need power,fresh water,food,houses,jobs,hospitals and schools,transportation and the list keeps going on,and there's only so much available in terms of resources to provide for all that,but with goverments being what they are,it's just not something they worry about now,or in the coming months or even few years,especially if it involves making difficult choices and sacrifices,and kissing their re-election goodbye,so we're stuck in this vicious circle,until that lack of resources is right in our faces,and the choices and sacrifices even harder to make,especially for the next generation.

illford baker
STK Scientific
IT Alliance
Posted - 2010.05.21 03:13:00 - [21]
 

yes, but first we need to develop a better way of getting to space, be it fusion engines, teleporter, or space elevator. until then it is just expensive scientific research that will hopefully lead to one of these new technologies.

digitalwanderer
Gallente
DF0 incorporated
Posted - 2010.05.21 04:02:00 - [22]
 

Originally by: illford baker
yes, but first we need to develop a better way of getting to space, be it fusion engines, teleporter, or space elevator. until then it is just expensive scientific research that will hopefully lead to one of these new technologies.



That's the funny part though....If even a small fraction of what was spent in useless military projects,was spent in actual scientific research towards those technologies,we'd be much further ahead in those fields than we are now...Keep in mind the amount of money spent on the B2 steath bomber as an example(1.5 billion $ each X 50 planes),or the star wars program in the 80's when ronald reagan was president....List goes on and on.

illford baker
STK Scientific
IT Alliance
Posted - 2010.05.21 05:01:00 - [23]
 

Originally by: digitalwanderer
Originally by: illford baker
yes, but first we need to develop a better way of getting to space, be it fusion engines, teleporter, or space elevator. until then it is just expensive scientific research that will hopefully lead to one of these new technologies.



That's the funny part though....If even a small fraction of what was spent in useless military projects,was spent in actual scientific research towards those technologies,we'd be much further ahead in those fields than we are now...Keep in mind the amount of money spent on the B2 steath bomber as an example(1.5 billion $ each X 50 planes),or the star wars program in the 80's when ronald reagan was president....List goes on and on.

yes, we could be exploring the milky way by now if it was not for wars! When are we going to grow up and stop fighting? It is time for science! (which may or may not lead to much more awesome wars involving giant galactic fighting robots, and sharks with friggen lasers)

Culmen
Caldari
Culmenation
Posted - 2010.05.21 05:16:00 - [24]
 

Edited by: Culmen on 21/05/2010 05:16:33
Originally by: digitalwanderer

That's the funny part though....If even a small fraction of what was spent in useless military projects,was spent in actual scientific research towards those technologies,we'd be much further ahead in those fields than we are now...Keep in mind the amount of money spent on the B2 steath bomber as an example(1.5 billion $ each X 50 planes),or the star wars program in the 80's when ronald reagan was president....List goes on and on.


You know, we wouldn't have a space program if CPL Adolf and the National Socialist hadn't wanted to blow up stuff in London from the comfort of their own homes.
See the V2 rocket program.
For that matter we wouldn't have the Apollo program if it wasn't for the space-peen waving contest between the US and the USSR.

It's especially funny, since the Star Wars program would have provided the impetus to develope technology to put lots of stuff into orbit.
While the Partial Test Ban Treaty scuttled Project Orion.
With that thing, we could have put someone on Mars by now.

Caldari Citizen20090217
Posted - 2010.05.21 13:30:00 - [25]
 

Originally by: Culmen
Yay Adolf he was alright really.

..While the Partial Test Ban Treaty scuttled Project Orion.



That and the fact that the fallout means that each launch means several people get cancer, along with the EMP given off each time the craft takes off means you have to launch from isolated areas. And the tech to make micronukes (for the propulsion) is exactly what our current rash of terrorists/freedom fighters are looking for.

If they can make pure fusion work for the propulsion tho this project really ought to be started up again. It is (AFAIK) the only viable means to shift useful payloads into space.

Culmen
Caldari
Culmenation
Posted - 2010.05.21 14:04:00 - [26]
 

Edited by: Culmen on 21/05/2010 14:07:34
Originally by: Caldari Citizen20090217

That and the fact that the fallout means that each launch means several people get cancer, along with the EMP given off each time the craft takes off means you have to launch from isolated areas. And the tech to make micronukes (for the propulsion) is exactly what our current rash of terrorists/freedom fighters are looking for.

If they can make pure fusion work for the propulsion tho this project really ought to be started up again. It is (AFAIK) the only viable means to shift useful payloads into space.


I agree that using nuclear propulsion for orbital insertion would be pretty darn stupid.
But as a means of interplanetary travel, nothing currently feasible can match it's high thrust and high specific impulse.
All you need to do is use conventional chemical rockets to get it a safe distance from earth, then let loose the nukes.

However, the Partial Test Ban Treaty also barred nuclear explosions in outer space.

Also "micronukes" were never an issue with terrorism and security. Constructing a nuclear bomb has always been easy, it's getting the fissile material that's hard. Plus the US has built over 3000 Nuclear Air-to-Air Missiles So it's not like humanity wasn't doing the whole "micronuke" thing in the first place.

Finally, a orion-style space craft could, with little to no modification, be use Antimatter Catalysed Nuclear Pulse Propulsion. Which is about as close to a pure fusion drive as we can get our heads around for the time being.


PS as evil as the national socialist were, and as ineffective the V2 program was. The V2 rocket was the first man made object to reach space (albeit on a sub-orbital trajectory). Werner Von Braun worked out many of the space flight kinks in that program. Spaceflight as a whole might have been delayed by years or decades.

digitalwanderer
Gallente
DF0 incorporated
Posted - 2010.05.21 23:51:00 - [27]
 

Razz
Originally by: Culmen
Edited by: Culmen on 21/05/2010 05:16:33
Originally by: digitalwanderer

That's the funny part though....If even a small fraction of what was spent in useless military projects,was spent in actual scientific research towards those technologies,we'd be much further ahead in those fields than we are now...Keep in mind the amount of money spent on the B2 steath bomber as an example(1.5 billion $ each X 50 planes),or the star wars program in the 80's when ronald reagan was president....List goes on and on.


You know, we wouldn't have a space program if CPL Adolf and the National Socialist hadn't wanted to blow up stuff in London from the comfort of their own homes.
See the V2 rocket program.
For that matter we wouldn't have the Apollo program if it wasn't for the space-peen waving contest between the US and the USSR.

It's especially funny, since the Star Wars program would have provided the impetus to develope technology to put lots of stuff into orbit.
While the Partial Test Ban Treaty scuttled Project Orion.
With that thing, we could have put someone on Mars by now.



Orion was a cool idea,but flawed from the start,as it was so large and heavy,that it required setting off nukes behind it,even when doing the initial takeoff thru the atmosphere,and about 800 seperate nuclear detonations would be needed until it got into orbit itself,so that would be a huge red flag to the whole idea right there.

But on the other hand,now that we do know how to assemble stuff in orbit,such as the ISS proves,nothing stops from applying the same priciple towards building such a craft in orbit,and the only thing really needed is a space elevator,as i'm not too enthusiastic about carrying fissionable materials needed to fuel said ship,using a conventional rocket as they tend to explode every now and then...Razz


But overall,it's still easy to claim that huge amounts of money were spent between the US and USSR over a period of 50+ years,and it was all a glorified ****ing match,that culminated in something not far of having close to 30 000 active nuclear warheads between both countries,which was more than enough to destroy everything on earth a few dozen times over(if not more),and that could have financed much more usefull research in other fields overall.

digitalwanderer
Gallente
DF0 incorporated
Posted - 2010.05.21 23:57:00 - [28]
 

We can also forget using antimatter,as just an extremely small amount of the stuff,is so expensive to produce using current methods,that you'd bankrupt the USA or any other country in the process,so much more efficient methods to make the stuff need to be invented to make that more practical,before even thinking about a propulsion system that actually uses it.


 

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only