the way this has to be thought of is, "how do we overcome the obstacles of off-world asteroid mining?" rather than "well, the these are the problems and it's too great a risk, yada, yada, yada....
The solutions to the problems of mining asteroids alone would be worth it, as far as the technology needed, never mind the precious materials up there, dammit.
Isn't the moon littered with impact craters from the very asteroids you speak of? wouldn't it be easier to explore lunar craters for not only precious metals but also volatiles/water?
I'd love to help pioneer it, but I don't really want to be rich, just help out my neighbours back home. I read 'Mining the sky' and John Lewis doesn't mention looking at the moon for impact craters caused by Iron Nickel (& Platinum group element) asteroids, that bothered me a bit. I think perhaps using radar reflection would help to determine if there are any metallic rich areas on the moon from asteroid impacts. Or perhaps surveys have been done, unbeknownst to me?
Using an initial investment to set up factories to produce most of the stuff needed from the raw materials already available at the asteroids would HUGELY reduce the long-term costs of setting up a space-based industry. Get a work base of a thousand semi-autonomous remote-controlled mining robots, refineries etc for the relatively low cost of launching the initial components. From there we can build almost anything we need outside of the earth's gravity field, making it effectively free.
Are you insane? Taxes don't create wealth, they distribute it!
Time to take Econ 101 I thinks.
Look at the last few decades, there's been almost no serious headway been made by governments to do anything as adventurous as space mining, nor will there be.
Private enterprise has this one, they're the only ones with the ability to take those risks consistently and explore new ways of making money.
@morganofconnaught First off, NASA isn't doing anything because their entire budget is 17 billion dollars, and much of it goes into upkeep costs. NASA and the Army have invented countless devices that have created more wealth than you can imagine: computers, cellphones, Satelite T.V., programing systems, Navigation, cordless power tools, virtual reality, artificial limbs, etc, etc. Your econ classes don't mean shit if you can't see past the barriers you've set in your mind.
Er, I think you just proved my point. If NASA was a private corporation, they would have monetized some of those inventions you mentioned, and thereby had massive amounts of capital for reinvestment into even more cooler and more useful inventions. That NASA is tied to the state, puts them on a short leash in terms of what risks they can take, esp. with their budget.
@morganofconnaught One small problem though with privatizing such an entity are that the corporation would still beg for handouts to save money. Even huge corporations that do their own research and development receive subsidies and work together with governments. Your argument rings somewhat false to me - like false silver coins: "clonk, clonk, clonk"! The public pays huge sums and receives nothing back for those money, not even a tiny discount.
Minning in space would have very high initial start up costs, once you get a industrial base, over head costs would drop alot. I would start by mining the moon to construct large mining ships and or stations out of steel. Also Hydrogen(Like helium 3) is supposedly embedded into the surface of the moon and other asteroids, this can be for effectively extracted(easier then breaking down H20) and used as fuel in high-powered ion-engines(Powered by Nuclear Fission or Fusion reactors)
Brin is awesome! He is just throwing lots of practical ideas out there, I believe being a libertarian keeps your mind open to various solutions to the problem.
Has anyone done any basic engineering on how mining and refining materials in zero G would work? Have concepts for space based smelters and shaping of metals been studied?
I don't like this guy, but yeah, we should have been freighting materials into space years ago. The earths gravity is our biggest limitation, taking stuff up bit by bit over a period of many years, will save engineers a lot of headaches when it comes to the logistics of an extended outer space mission.
@Tadgh78 Current fusion technologies cannot use H3, as exciting as the prospect of creating energy from it is. Inertial confinement produces no model for H3 use at all, and magnetic confinement fusion...commercial power generation is not expected until 2050. This doesn't mean that it's off the table...and I hope we turn H3 into a power solution. It's extremely expensive and counter-productive at this point, unfortunately.
P.S. You don't sound much like a PhD - you stutter every time you mention your doctorate and look away from the camera. Your obviously lying or hiding something. Why lie about something like that? Do your research on the topics you speak of. You have many fallacies - it won't nearly or even relatively the cost as much to launch from earth as it will the moon. You do realize the gravitational field of the moon is 16.7% that of the earth? Right?
I think your missing the huge point of Space Explorations. Human presents in space, mining, refining, and manufacturing in space will drive a huge industrial revolution that will change man kind as we know it. Just one miner in space is worth Billions. Self replication of equipment will lead to self replication of refineries and manufacturing plants, to the production of huge space stations, space vehicles, with an entire civilization in space. Its prime real estate. Your views are very earthly.
True. We need to get out there. It saddens me that space mining isn't in focus. The moon is worthless in my eyes. Just another gravity trap. Space is the place we should go, not to planets and other incredible huge rocks. It is much easier to colonize space, it would be cheap and practical. And it would open the most doors.
Wonderful video, I truly enjoy your informed speculation. David, if you read this, I'd just like to let you know that you've been a source of inspiration for me and a contributing factor to my faith in humanity.
I'm excited to be alive at a time when our technology is truly on the brink of exponential returns for our race. The notion of maintaining Terra as a diverse biological system, while at the same time forging ahead to greater horizons, is one with great merit.
Unlike asteroids, Mars, and especially comets, the Moon always orbits a close distance from the Earth. For this reason the Moon will be the safest, resource-rich location for an initial off-Earth colony. NEAs are even worse than Mars in terms of launch window frequently (e.g. Apophis is every 8 years).
For manned missions with current technology that is definitely important. For unmanned missions, and manned missions a little bit later, total delta-v required is a much more important metric of how "far" something is in space.. and NEOs are a lot closer than the surface of the Moon in terms of delta-v.
@quantumG - Fair enough. But I think that we agree, in the near-term, safety will be an overriding concern. Distance is still a concern as Apollo 13 illustrates. If those guys were further away, they would not have survived regardless of delta-v. Such a catastrophe could suspend manned missions for a long time.
@quantumG - With distance, what do you do when a critical piece of equipment breaks down and now you're weeks to months away from being able to replace it. With manned mining of an asteroid you've got long-term risk of the above. The long periods of NEOs means you'll have some scheduling issues which are not as bad with the Moon. Travel times to and from the NEO will tie up your ships for months or even years whereas there can be a turnaround of, perhaps, weeks between the Earth and the Moon.
i think that its worth considering that by becoming too dependent on things that orbit the planet will lead to an almost deinite economic crash when these resources are exhausted.
Sound familiar? Oil is the exact same. However we can anticipate the end and prepare accordingly (like we are with alternate energy sources to fossil fuels), so while after things like oil or asteroids run their course we probably won't be as rich as at their peak, but we will certainly be more advanced and better off because of it.
Also I think you underestimate the amount of material the asteroids.
yeah... that sounds about right... i tend to think of more like the dutch tulip trade of the 1600s, which ended when people realised that tulips were practically onions, and also, we owe it to our descendants to allow them to slowly mine outer space, or to begin a large and legenday construction project that would reverse the economic situation, like a skyscraper that reaches the clouds, built entirely of metals from asteroids, funded entirely by precious materials from space- eh, just an idea.
Awesome content, thanks - but I had to turn the audio down to half for the hissy audio not to kill my ears, maybe that can be fixed in later installments.
the way this has to be thought of is, "how do we overcome the obstacles of off-world asteroid mining?" rather than "well, the these are the problems and it's too great a risk, yada, yada, yada....
The solutions to the problems of mining asteroids alone would be worth it, as far as the technology needed, never mind the precious materials up there, dammit.
Darthbelal 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
its just a matter of time i think
13JunkYarDog13 6 months ago
Isn't the moon littered with impact craters from the very asteroids you speak of? wouldn't it be easier to explore lunar craters for not only precious metals but also volatiles/water?
marmaladekamikaze 7 months ago
@marmaladekamikaze why don't you pioneer this then? it actually seems like a fine idea. u could be a rich son of a bitch in a few decades lol
13JunkYarDog13 6 months ago 2
@13JunkYarDog13
I'd love to help pioneer it, but I don't really want to be rich, just help out my neighbours back home. I read 'Mining the sky' and John Lewis doesn't mention looking at the moon for impact craters caused by Iron Nickel (& Platinum group element) asteroids, that bothered me a bit. I think perhaps using radar reflection would help to determine if there are any metallic rich areas on the moon from asteroid impacts. Or perhaps surveys have been done, unbeknownst to me?
marmaladekamikaze 6 months ago
Brin is the King.
Pandoranage4101 8 months ago
Using an initial investment to set up factories to produce most of the stuff needed from the raw materials already available at the asteroids would HUGELY reduce the long-term costs of setting up a space-based industry. Get a work base of a thousand semi-autonomous remote-controlled mining robots, refineries etc for the relatively low cost of launching the initial components. From there we can build almost anything we need outside of the earth's gravity field, making it effectively free.
Sporegasm 9 months ago
sure go into space!!
however the distance is too great!!
googlibrary 9 months ago
I had to stop watching this half way through.
Tax?
Are you insane? Taxes don't create wealth, they distribute it!
Time to take Econ 101 I thinks.
Look at the last few decades, there's been almost no serious headway been made by governments to do anything as adventurous as space mining, nor will there be.
Private enterprise has this one, they're the only ones with the ability to take those risks consistently and explore new ways of making money.
morganofconnaught 1 year ago
@morganofconnaught First off, NASA isn't doing anything because their entire budget is 17 billion dollars, and much of it goes into upkeep costs. NASA and the Army have invented countless devices that have created more wealth than you can imagine: computers, cellphones, Satelite T.V., programing systems, Navigation, cordless power tools, virtual reality, artificial limbs, etc, etc. Your econ classes don't mean shit if you can't see past the barriers you've set in your mind.
verchow1 1 year ago
@verchow1 NASAs budget should be $200 billion. Anyone with a brain knows that the country who wins the space race, rules the world.
verchow1 1 year ago
@verchow1
Er, I think you just proved my point. If NASA was a private corporation, they would have monetized some of those inventions you mentioned, and thereby had massive amounts of capital for reinvestment into even more cooler and more useful inventions. That NASA is tied to the state, puts them on a short leash in terms of what risks they can take, esp. with their budget.
morganofconnaught 11 months ago 2
@morganofconnaught One small problem though with privatizing such an entity are that the corporation would still beg for handouts to save money. Even huge corporations that do their own research and development receive subsidies and work together with governments. Your argument rings somewhat false to me - like false silver coins: "clonk, clonk, clonk"! The public pays huge sums and receives nothing back for those money, not even a tiny discount.
Teadon86 5 months ago
Russia
Denmark
and
China
Rock
Watch the Sky at Night on BBC
End Regional Coding and the Coming Cyber Attacks
True German Communism forever...I love kinky sex...not personally though
lazyfreedom98 1 year ago
T
H
A
N
K
Y
O
U
Its like a waste zone out there.
lazyfreedom98 1 year ago
Minning in space would have very high initial start up costs, once you get a industrial base, over head costs would drop alot. I would start by mining the moon to construct large mining ships and or stations out of steel. Also Hydrogen(Like helium 3) is supposedly embedded into the surface of the moon and other asteroids, this can be for effectively extracted(easier then breaking down H20) and used as fuel in high-powered ion-engines(Powered by Nuclear Fission or Fusion reactors)
Reaver4k 1 year ago
Brin is awesome! He is just throwing lots of practical ideas out there, I believe being a libertarian keeps your mind open to various solutions to the problem.
pikapp369 1 year ago
Has anyone done any basic engineering on how mining and refining materials in zero G would work? Have concepts for space based smelters and shaping of metals been studied?
vagabond1066 1 year ago
I don't like this guy, but yeah, we should have been freighting materials into space years ago. The earths gravity is our biggest limitation, taking stuff up bit by bit over a period of many years, will save engineers a lot of headaches when it comes to the logistics of an extended outer space mission.
usernamefromhell 1 year ago
Pay a tax for living thanks to the industrial military complex? Global warming?!? You are an ass.
Scorceror 1 year ago
There is Helium3 on the moon. Maybe enough to meet the earths energy supplies for 1000 years. That it the point of going there.
Tadgh78 1 year ago
@Tadgh78 Current fusion technologies cannot use H3, as exciting as the prospect of creating energy from it is. Inertial confinement produces no model for H3 use at all, and magnetic confinement fusion...commercial power generation is not expected until 2050. This doesn't mean that it's off the table...and I hope we turn H3 into a power solution. It's extremely expensive and counter-productive at this point, unfortunately.
thislucidlife 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
P.S. You don't sound much like a PhD - you stutter every time you mention your doctorate and look away from the camera. Your obviously lying or hiding something. Why lie about something like that? Do your research on the topics you speak of. You have many fallacies - it won't nearly or even relatively the cost as much to launch from earth as it will the moon. You do realize the gravitational field of the moon is 16.7% that of the earth? Right?
ItHurtsToDoNumberTwo 1 year ago
I think your missing the huge point of Space Explorations. Human presents in space, mining, refining, and manufacturing in space will drive a huge industrial revolution that will change man kind as we know it. Just one miner in space is worth Billions. Self replication of equipment will lead to self replication of refineries and manufacturing plants, to the production of huge space stations, space vehicles, with an entire civilization in space. Its prime real estate. Your views are very earthly.
ItHurtsToDoNumberTwo 1 year ago
Comment removed
ItHurtsToDoNumberTwo 1 year ago
Comment removed
ItHurtsToDoNumberTwo 1 year ago
Comment removed
ItHurtsToDoNumberTwo 1 year ago
@ItHurtsToDoNumberTwo
True. We need to get out there. It saddens me that space mining isn't in focus. The moon is worthless in my eyes. Just another gravity trap. Space is the place we should go, not to planets and other incredible huge rocks. It is much easier to colonize space, it would be cheap and practical. And it would open the most doors.
fuunguus 1 year ago
Wonderful video, I truly enjoy your informed speculation. David, if you read this, I'd just like to let you know that you've been a source of inspiration for me and a contributing factor to my faith in humanity.
I'm excited to be alive at a time when our technology is truly on the brink of exponential returns for our race. The notion of maintaining Terra as a diverse biological system, while at the same time forging ahead to greater horizons, is one with great merit.
Thank you!
Pravuz 1 year ago
Unlike asteroids, Mars, and especially comets, the Moon always orbits a close distance from the Earth. For this reason the Moon will be the safest, resource-rich location for an initial off-Earth colony. NEAs are even worse than Mars in terms of launch window frequently (e.g. Apophis is every 8 years).
JohnHunt2001 1 year ago
For manned missions with current technology that is definitely important. For unmanned missions, and manned missions a little bit later, total delta-v required is a much more important metric of how "far" something is in space.. and NEOs are a lot closer than the surface of the Moon in terms of delta-v.
quantumG 1 year ago
@quantumG - Fair enough. But I think that we agree, in the near-term, safety will be an overriding concern. Distance is still a concern as Apollo 13 illustrates. If those guys were further away, they would not have survived regardless of delta-v. Such a catastrophe could suspend manned missions for a long time.
JohnHunt2001 1 year ago
Sure, but what's that got to do with unmanned missions now, or manned missions in the long term?
quantumG 1 year ago
@quantumG - With distance, what do you do when a critical piece of equipment breaks down and now you're weeks to months away from being able to replace it. With manned mining of an asteroid you've got long-term risk of the above. The long periods of NEOs means you'll have some scheduling issues which are not as bad with the Moon. Travel times to and from the NEO will tie up your ships for months or even years whereas there can be a turnaround of, perhaps, weeks between the Earth and the Moon.
JohnHunt2001 1 year ago
i think that its worth considering that by becoming too dependent on things that orbit the planet will lead to an almost deinite economic crash when these resources are exhausted.
hobo8675309 1 year ago
Sound familiar? Oil is the exact same. However we can anticipate the end and prepare accordingly (like we are with alternate energy sources to fossil fuels), so while after things like oil or asteroids run their course we probably won't be as rich as at their peak, but we will certainly be more advanced and better off because of it.
Also I think you underestimate the amount of material the asteroids.
Amdisperigrinus 1 year ago 3
yeah... that sounds about right... i tend to think of more like the dutch tulip trade of the 1600s, which ended when people realised that tulips were practically onions, and also, we owe it to our descendants to allow them to slowly mine outer space, or to begin a large and legenday construction project that would reverse the economic situation, like a skyscraper that reaches the clouds, built entirely of metals from asteroids, funded entirely by precious materials from space- eh, just an idea.
hobo8675309 1 year ago
Awesome content, thanks - but I had to turn the audio down to half for the hissy audio not to kill my ears, maybe that can be fixed in later installments.
themel0r 2 years ago