Space Colonization Thread

[Jalpha]

Okay. I think I now know what you are getting at. Martian gold would be more expensive due to transport costs.

However... This will probably be balanced out by increased supply. So while you would have to add the transport costs to the price of the gold, there would be more gold.

This is only relevant to people who require physical access, on earth, to the gold.

[Ysh]

Okay. I think I now know what you are getting at. Martian gold would be more expensive due to transport costs.

However... This will probably be balanced out by increased supply. So while you would have to add the transport costs to the price of the gold, there would be more gold.

This is only relevant to people who require physical access, on earth, to the gold.

Yes, I think we are on same page now. And who knows how these thing would really shake out, it will depend on real detail.

[MagicManICT]

I am not entirely certain how martian and earth gold would be differentiated. I guess there would be like some kind of spaceport security gate on the moon probably so physical separation could be enforced.

Gold is gold, and short of having impurities in it that could be directly identified as Martian, there isn't a way. Maybe some future quantum device will be able to fingerprint it.

I do not say anything about individual gold purchase. I also think most gold is buy by banks.

I'm sure there's information about the amount of gold held by banks (all types--depository, securities, exchanges, etc) as reserves vs the amount held by consumers and private individuals. You can still buy gold certificates, but they're not currency of any country, just another form of stock, bond, or other financial tool.

This is only relevant to people who require physical access, on earth, to the gold.

Who, other than jewelers and artists, would need it*? The current supply on Earth is more than enough for now. If you're talking reserves for financial matters, it could stay wherever it was just fine... don't forget to factor in the significant density of gold when trying to move it. (*probably aerospace manufacturing to make protective gold foil for human passengers and sensitive equipment.)

Also, why chase after gold? It's probably the least valuable metal we need for expansion. We'll need significant amounts of titanium (the moon), platinum, palladium, gallium, and a whole bunch of rare-earth metals. Our top end computing needs have already driven up the prices of semiconductors other than silicon to higher and higher levels.

Then again the martian soil is literally full of rocket fuel so it may not be as expensive as you think to send gold from mars to earth.

Why use rocket fuel when you could use solar energy and a large rail gun to launch such cargo back to Earth? Same holds true for Lunar operations. If course correction were needed, it could be provided via reusable guidance systems and solar/battery powered ion drives. Rocket fuel is inefficient and relatively expensive. This is what I hate about games like "Surviving Mars." They rely on rockets as the "vehicle" for delivering to a colony or returning to Earth (or another location).

The hard part is getting anything off of Earth. A gravity of 1.0 and (relatively) thick atmosphere puts a huge strain on space flight.

I saw astronomy mentioned earlier. What advantages does building on the moon have vs parking a remote-controlled observatory somewhere in orbit? Maintenance? Well, that orbital will be cheaper to maintain or repair than a Lunar based station. Nobody needs an astronomer "on location" anymore. The advantages of Hubble and the other space based telescopes are because of microgravity, and the disadvantages are because we have to manufacture the optics on Earth rather than in microgravity.

Another "need" for efficient movement of materials is to get away from rockets all together. Only two ways of doing that currently are railguns (won't work very well on Earth, but would from orbit) and a space elevator--currently theorized... and we have an opportunity coming up to capture a very "near Earth" asteroid in about a decade... but I don't think we're going to be ready to park it in geostationary orbit. While mass use of fullerene--specifically nanotube--technology is a couple decades off, these have shown potential to be the construction material for such a space elevator.

[Jalpha]

A bank or investment firm could send a representative to inspect the gold, or better yet... They could have a permanent office based near the location where the gold was stored. They don't need to see it, touch it or use it. There just needs to be sufficient evidence that the gold exists so that the value may be added to portfolios.

Gold is important because it inspires individuals. Individuals are needed in space. We are not yet at the point where anybody is going to start forcibly shipping humans off the earth (and I hope we never get there). The first people who go need to want to go and they need lots of money to fund all of the support services which will follow them there. In the absence of an enormous corporate construction project (which nobody can afford yet) a gold rush is the fastest and best method of establishing a human presence BEO.

Gold prospectors will want to screw hookers, drink beer, smoke, eat good food and relax somewhere comfortable in between forays in their live-in trucks.

I mentioned rocket fuel because I wanted to highlight that martian soil is poisonous when untreated and also because it's an existing technology. Railguns are a superior option but underdeveloped. A very good option on the moon where there is no atmosphere however on mars their application will be more complicated primarily due to dust.

Lets talk about the JWST briefly. It has taken 24 years and 10 billion dollars to develop a telescope with a 6.5m mirror which can be launched from earth and it will only last 5 years. That's a bloody joke mate. you could build a bigger, better telescope on the moon. It would last longer, have a bigger mirror and unlock more secrets of the universe than we could process without revolutionising the education system and funneling students into related subjects.

I suspect that space manufacturing will leave earth. Rockets will be used until then to move bulk goods BEO until a manufacturing base exists BEO. There is an aircraft engine similar to a form of scramjet currently in development. Thier primary technological hurdle is material sciences relating to the compressor. We can't make anything strong enough yet. We will. When that happens space tourists can simply fly to LEO instead of riding a bone breaking rocket. I think we have polluted earth enough with materials and substances we don't understand without littering nanotubes all over the place. A space elevator could be viable on the moon but not on mars because of the orbit of one of the moons, I forget which.

[dafels]

I love how Jalpha/Joss is an expert on economics, astronomy, military, social sciences, almost everything. The companies NEED to hire him. The world needs more men like this, proud to be a friend of his!

[Jalpha]

Nominating myself for global dictator 2033. Boomers beware.

[MagicManICT]

it will only last 5 years.

Hubble was only supposed to last 5 years... 1986-1991. It got delayed indefinitely by the Challenger explosion in 1986; Hubble was supposed to go up in June or July that year. It finally went up in the early 90s... it's still functioning just fine! We've just reached the limit of it being useful... for now. (I'm sure someone else will come up with more things to put it to use for, or some upgrades to it that can be performed during a mission.) Pioneer 10 was launched in 1972 and the last signaled was received in 2003 only because the batteries finally died. Voyager 1 is still operational and transmits on a regular basis. An estimated average life is given only because we don't know what can go wrong in space, and some of the most expensive probes launched have been complete disasters. If Hubble wasn't in near-Earth orbit, it would have been a major failure.

[Jalpha]

Yea, I grabbed the lower figure for lifespan to make it seem as ridiculous as possible. They are hoping to push its operational lifespan out to ten years. It won't be used much beyond this because unlike Hubble, the JWST will not be able to be serviced. This means, first and foremost, no replacement gas for maneuvering jets. At some time it will run out of gas and it will be left pointing in the same direction forever. Even if the other parts still work. Assuming it deploys correctly and that it survives launch. It is also going to be placed at L2 I think which is an extremely difficult place to get a service crew to.

I mean it's a great piece of kit but it's a great example of how corrupt and inefficient NASA has become and why space needs to be privatised. Most of the planets we know of are gas giants, we know very little about brown dwarfs and it will push back the veil of time and allow us to see further back towards the big bang.

I'm glad it exists but by the end of it's lifetime there will hopefully be a whole host of advanced telescopes all over the moon and being manufactured to be placed elsewhere also.

[MagicManICT]

I don't remember the name of the ESA probe, but it landed on a comet a decade or two ago. Big price tag, one use device... Sure, it was expensive, but it gave the scientists that got the money for it a lot of useful information.

I'm glad it exists but by the end of it's lifetime there will hopefully be a whole host of advanced telescopes all over the moon and being manufactured to be placed elsewhere also.

These won't be any cheaper to place (actually more expensive as the cost to insert into any orbit is about the same; the cost to land on another body is much higher as you need fuel for ascent, decent, and if needing a manned crew, ascent again), and won't have any more serviceability than something parked in orbit. And no, there won't be as there is no advantage to having it "on the Moon" vs just in orbit.

If NASA is inefficient, it's due to many other factors that you cannot easily change "just because we're going commercial." The list of things that could change at NASA is way longer than anything I want to discuss. Working for NASA was on my 'short list' of career goals

[Jalpha]

You are discussing this from the perspective that there will be no permanent manned presence on the moon. I am discussing this from the perspective that the Artemis program is a go and because it is a project of international collaboration the USA is not necessary to the continuing functionality of a manned moon base. There are many advantages to having telescopes on the moon versus in orbit beyond this however. Just look at the lifespan of a telescope in Hawaii compared to one placed in earth orbit. The size of the mirrors on earth versus in orbit. You could ship the mirrors in segments to the moon even without basic manufacturing on the moon. I'm not sure how to convince you that this is happening.