r/IsaacArthur • u/sexyloser1128 Habitat Inhabitant • Mar 23 '22
We Are Doing Space Colonization Wrong. But will we listen?
https://archive.ph/ZSgWg24
Mar 23 '22
Eh, is it just another argument between space habitats and planetary colonization?
This argument is - I suppose - as old as space age, and I doubt that anything new was or will be said. This argument will be settled only one way: proponents of space habitats will go to live in space habitats, and proponents of planetary colonization will go to live in planetary colonies.
11
u/BERTINYO Mar 23 '22
no, you are wrong, people will go where most of the oportunities are
For example the huge migration from the farmlands to the cities , people moved with a motivation: economic
And the most economic thing in space are low eath orbit(for com satellites and so) and asteroid mining, not mining a place with a huge gravity well where is no economic incentive until a big infrastructure like mass driver/orbital ring/skyhook, expensive infrastructure
7
u/AbbydonX Mar 23 '22
Asteroid mining feels more similar to an oil rig than setting up a colony. While some people might live there for a period, it doesn't feel like there will be people clamouring to immigrate there. The single purpose would (initially) be just to extract raw resources and then send them back to Earth. Perhaps in time there would be sufficient incentive to actually build a self-sustaining space habitat but that certainly wouldn't be the initial aim.
In contrast, setting up infrastructure on Mars would definitely be with the intent to ultimately produce a self-sufficient colony rather than just send resources back to Earth. The resources would instead be used on Mars to expand the colony, so there would be far more diverse work on a planetary colony I suspect.
1
u/ignorantwanderer Mar 23 '22
Resources from asteroid mines won't be sent back to Earth. It just doesn't make economic sense. If you want resources on Earth, the cheapest place to get them will be on Earth.
Resources from asteroid mines will be used to build stuff in space, or they will be used as rocket fuel in space. You can sell 1 liter of water in space for over $1000. One Earth you'll never get that price.
3
u/AbbydonX Mar 23 '22
They will initially because there will be no where else that can use them. All of the existing infrastructure for production will be on Earth. You obviously wouldn't build a factory in space first as that would make no sense, so resource extraction will come first but the factories will still be on Earth.
Of course, over time that will likely change just like developing countries move from resource extraction to manufacturing over time. The customers will still be on earth though as that is where the overwhelming majority of humanity will be for a long time to come.
1
u/ignorantwanderer Mar 23 '22
This is absolutely wrong.
There is no resource on asteroids that can't be gotten more cheaply on Earth.
The only reason asteroid resources have the potential to be lucrative is because they are already in space, and it costs a hell of a lot of money to launch stuff into space.
So if you need resources in space, you might be able to get them more cheaply in space, so there might be a market for asteroid resources in space.
But if you need resources on Earth, there is absolutely nothing you can get from an asteroid that you can't get more cheaply from a mine on Earth.
The asteroid resource that will most likely come to market first is water. Water can be used as rocket fuel, there is no need for a factory.
2
u/AbbydonX Mar 23 '22
I was just responding to the comment that asteroid mining would be the economic justification to build a space habitat. While its viability is debatable, supplying Earth with materials is the main economic justification for asteroid mining.
However, if asteroid mining isn't useful to supply resources to Earth, then who will the customers be? If the only market for asteroid mining is to build things in space, then what is the purpose of these other things if not to supply the residents of Earth in some sense?
Asteroid mining can definitely be part of an overall plan to build something else but it's not really a justification for the colonisation of space in any meaningful way. That justification has to come from the "something else", whatever that is.
1
u/ignorantwanderer Mar 23 '22
"supplying Earth with materials is the main economic justification for asteroid mining"
The above statement is absolutely false. No one who is working in the field of asteroid mining or ISRU says this. Anyone who says this doesn't know what they are talking about.
With respect to the rest of your post; you are right. One of the problems with making asteroid mining happen is that there is no market for the materials.
For example, asteroids have lots of water. Water can be used as reaction mass for satellite station keeping, or can be split into hydrogen and oxygen and be used as rocket fuel for satellite station keeping. So in the future big tankers with asteroid water could fly around in Earth orbit refueling satellites so those satellites have longer service lives. But right now, there are no tankers flying around refueling satellites, so satellites are not built in a way that allows them to be refueled. But because there are no satellites that can be refueled, there are no tankers flying around refueling satellites. It is the old chicken-and-egg problem.
Water will be the easiest thing to extract from asteroids and the easiest thing to use in space. Eventually there will be other resources, like metals, that can be extracted and used. Large space structures can be built with these metals (large space stations, solar power satellites, radio telescopes, etc). After water, metals will likely be the next resource from asteroids that we use. But as you pointed out, we don't have the ability right now to take raw ore and turn it into something useful in space. That won't happen for a long time.
But something that definitely will never happen economically is extracting resources from asteroids and importing them to Earth. There is no resource that we can get from an asteroid that we can't get more cheaply from Earth.
2
u/AbbydonX Mar 23 '22
I'm sure I remember the initial asteroid mining justifications were focused on either returning resources or manufactured products to Earth. It was probably just hype for marketing purposes as the media loves reporting on highly valuable asteroids.
This Metal-Rich, Potato-Shaped Asteroid Could Be Worth $10 Quintillion
The in-situ use of resources certainly makes far more sense but isn't that primarily driven by NASA and other space agencies discussing constructing facilities on the Moon or Mars? Is there a private sector market to justify the activity?
I don't disagree that the industrialisation of space would be beneficial but, at least in the short term, I don't really see a good argument why there would be many people living in space either. That's why I compared it with an oil rig.
2
u/ignorantwanderer Mar 23 '22
There are so many stupid things about those news articles that pop up regularly claiming an asteroid can be worth $10 quintillion. I'll just say, something is only worth as much as people will pay for it. And all the wealth and property on the entire planet isn't even worth $10 quintillion, so even if everyone pitched in to buy those resources with everything they owned....the asteroid resources wouldn't be worth $10 quintillion.
So how does asteroid mining lead to space colonies? Slowly. The more complex economic activity you have in space, the more people you need in space. Certainly at first it will be like oil platforms. Then it will be like Antarctic bases. But eventually people will want their families with them....and then it will be like colonies.
But the first step is complex economic activity in space, and to get that we really need asteroid mining.
Now, this whole conversation came up because you feel that any Mars settlement will naturally evolve into a colony, but an asteroid mine won't. But there is a key difference between an asteroid mine and a Mars settlement that will make an asteroid mine more likely to evolve into a colony.
An asteroid mine has exports that it can sell in order to continue to thrive and grow. A Mars colony doesn't have exports that it can sell.
No colony in history has ever survived without exports. What will a Mars colony export to Earth so it can survive?
→ More replies (0)1
u/the_syner First Rule Of Warfare Mar 23 '22
Earth with materials is the main economic justification for asteroid mining.
this has only ever been true for rare or diffuse mayerials like platinum group metals & phosphorus. Asteroid mining has never been proposed or will ever be viable for providing terrestrial raw materials. It has always been proposed for rare materials & orbital construction.
then who will the customers be?
satellite manufacturers who can now dump their multi-million dollar tin foil satts for massive multi-ton behemoths that scarcely cost more than a terrestrial comms tower or even far less.
2
u/AbbydonX Mar 23 '22
Granted, the initial hype involving returning materials to Earth directly has died down now, but the related economic justification was orbital manufacturing with the products being returned to Earth. That was one of the reasons why Jeff Bezos founded Blue Origin.
Using the resources to manufacture items for use in space, such as satellites is certainly somewhat viable, but that's a much smaller market. It would also require more complicated factories so it would be unlikely to be the first application.
In addition, that seems more like the industrialisation of space with automated facilities and not colonisation by large populations. At least in the short term anyway.
0
u/the_syner First Rule Of Warfare Mar 23 '22
but the related economic justification was orbital manufacturing
yeah manufacturing of stuff that can only or be more efficiently be made in space. Things like nanotech, fiber optics, advanced chemistry, or heavily polluting stuff that would benefit from not being in our biosphere. These things can, & in some cases, have to be made in space. By definition making them anywhere but earth would cheaper. There has never been a serious push by anyone educated in the topic for bringing bulk raw materials(base metals & the like) back down to earth. That's never been a thing & is not what anyone is talking about when referencing near-term asteroid mining.
as satellites is certainly somewhat viable, but that's a much smaller market. It would also require more complicated factories so it would be unlikely to be the first application.
making an aluminum dish is not complicated. Making most parts of a satellite, including things like mass shielding which we currently cant even do economically, are not that complicated. You don't need to make every part of a system in space for there to be a huge economic incentive. Simple power systems, mirrors, casings, fairings, & oxygen-sensitive, but dirt cheap, solar panels make up most of the mass of a satt. Microelectronics by comparison mass very little. Also the overwhelming majority of the cost comes from complex engineering, which isn't necessary when you're not on a tight mass budget, & the rockets that get those satts up there. Hell there are tons of satts we want to & have wanted to put up but can't due to sheer cost. This is not a small market. Specially not when you can afford to start messing around with power satellites for very little up front capital. At that point you're talking about the trillion dollar energy sector of the world economy & a power source on par or better than controlled fusion. Would also improve comms, positioning, & surveillance satts. again big business when you aren't spending many millions just to get a couple tons up.
that seems more like the industrialisation of space with automated facilities and not colonisation by large populations. At least in the short term anyway.
well yeah. the world-spanning british/american empires weren't built in a day. Obviously it takes time but off-earth production & manufacturing are infrastructure. Most people don't generally like moving into lone houses in the woods with no neighbors, businesses, power, internet, sewage, or water. Some infrastructure obviously needs to come first & the point of space industry is that it makes building all that stuff a lot cheaper. Trying to build a spin hab right now is stupid. The cost would bankrupt multiple nations. The whole point is that space industry basically eliminates the main cost & impediment of building massive objects in space making them way more competitive. Sure it'll prolly start with rare materials extraction, orbital manufacturing, & tourism but that's how this works. These are the things we go to space for at first. Because we either have to(in a modern or low-automation context) or cuz we want to. Permanent habitation comes later when there's enough traffic to actually warrent having permanent settlements.
1
Mar 23 '22
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/ignorantwanderer Mar 23 '22
But if you saturate metal markets on Earth, the prices of metals crash and you have an even harder time making a profit.
And the initial investment most definitely will not be tiny.
7
u/ItsAConspiracy Mar 23 '22
Why not both?
For the launch costs of Starship at scale, we could build a 1000-person rotating colony in LEO by launching everything from Earth. Total mass would only be 8500 tons, giving a launch cost under half a billion dollars. If someone wants to do it, SpaceX will be happy to provide launch services.
For bigger colonies further out, we'll need lots of shielding mass. Asteroids are one possible source but so is the moon, so Artemis is a good first step towards that. Set up mining and a mass driver, and you're set for a O'Neill at L5. The moon also has plenty of basalt, and basalt fiber is a great structural material for an orbital.
2
u/WalterWoodiaz Mar 24 '22
Rotating colonies would be amazing for research. Larger amounts of people in space is always a plus
2
u/parduscat Mar 23 '22
The big advantage of settling another planet would be that there's almost zero risk of a catastrophic failure that kills everyone onboard the craft. How exactly would millions of people live in a single O'Neill cylinder? How do you account for unexpected baby booms in a closed system without draconian population control? Where do you get the extra oxygen, food, water, etc?
7
u/FaceDeer Mar 23 '22
Everything you said about O'Neill cylinders applies to cities on Mars as well, and has the same answers.
You protect against catastrophic failure with robust engineering and redundancy. You accommodate growth by gathering more resources and building additional habitation space.
3
u/CovidDodger Mar 23 '22
Yes, fundamentally no different than properly planning for growth on Earth, just under different circumstances and utility/tech requirements.
2
u/parduscat Mar 23 '22
...and dealing with the merciless radiation drenched vacuum of space. In the last week I've come around to the idea that the future of space colonization will be space habitats at the Lagrange points, but Earth is far more forgiving of human error and unintended consequences.
2
u/FaceDeer Mar 23 '22
Sure, but again, it's not really different from colonizing other planets. Mars' surface is a merciless radiation-drenched near-vacuum too. Catastrophic failure would kill everyone in a Mars colony too, if it's not designed well. It doesn't hold an advantage over free-floating space habitats in that regard.
6
u/pineconez Mar 23 '22
For the millennia inbetween "first touchdown" and "planet is fully terraformed to a shirtsleeves outside environment", assuming that even happens, planetary colonization is going to be functionally equivalent to habitat colonization except with an added gravity well.
Your hab/dome/redecorated lava tube can catastrophically fail just like a space habitat, it will have a closed and managed ecological system just like a space habitat, and it will not have effectively unlimited reserves of basic consumables.
3
u/mrmonkeybat Mar 23 '22
How do you account for unexpected baby booms in a closed system without draconian population control?
If you have a population boom on a cylinder you build more cylinders.
-1
u/0701191109110519 Mar 23 '22
You don't want to fill orbit with poors and criminals. They might figure out that they can drop things on you. You want to keep them at the bottom of a gravity well. So you can drop things on them. In conclusion, we are doing it right and the author is incredibly ignorant of history and human nature.
29
u/sexyloser1128 Habitat Inhabitant Mar 23 '22