On 27/04/16 01:27 PM, John Hopkins wrote: > On 27/Apr/16 12:14, Rob Myers wrote: > >> The initial environmental cost of shipping robots offworld to move the >> mining and refining there would very quickly become a net environmental >> and political gain. Strip mining, resource wars, refining within the >> Earth's atmosphere would all be reduced. > > *Emphatically NO* > > Examine the total infrastructure demands of the existing 'space' > industry (and the military-industrial system that drives it. > > Cost one of the Mars rovers, and it will begin to give you a sense of > infrastructure scope that a *single* device can involve. And the 'other' > hidden costs from the whole mining infrastructure (you gotta build the > damn robots *here*, and the oil that drives all of that...
Absolutely, and then add on the entire infrastructure demands of rare earth mining and refining and distribution for, say, twenty years. *but* Then ramp it down as it's moved offworld, to the point where it's less than when we started. > There is *NO* way that off-planet *anything* is cost effective in *any* > way. Nor will it ever be environmentally sensible! You're not alone in arguing that: http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-25716103 But: http://www.treehugger.com/natural-sciences/save-environment-mining-asteroids.html > Do a quick calculation how to get materials back to earth -- just the > deceleration and landing infrastructure costs *per gram* are out of this > world... Just solar sail the refined minerals back to Earth's gravity well then aero-brake them (using ablative shields made from refining by-products) into the ocean for pickup. Wheeeeee! (I have a dystopian short story where the target is the tundra...) > (I just heard a 1955 Sci-Fi bubble make a HUGE 'pop'!) Yes it's a bit Lensman. :-) _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
