617
Space Karen's fans be like
(feddit.de)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 15 Sep 2023
617 points (91.1% liked)
Memes
45459 readers
1247 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
As for point 2. For any space project for resource gathering you want to stay FAAAR away from any major gravity wells as escaping them is currently 99% of the cost for our current rocketsm it's genuinely wasteful in terms of fuel and most of the rocket is shed afterwards too.
Gravity wells would be one way delivery only while resource gathering operations, as you said, would stay on dwarf planets, asteroids and lesser moons like our own.
Just felt like giving an explanation to your post for anyone who reads by and doesn't understand why mining asteroids/ the moon is a plainly superior option.
Economics Explained recently published a video explaining how using space as a way to get resources will never be economically viable. It doesn't matter how cheap you can produce something if the shipping cost is $5,000 per gram. We'd sooner syphon gold out of ocean water than get it from an asteroid.
Space travel is a great investment when it comes to discovering new technologies that revolutionize life, but a terrible investment for resource extraction.
It's great if the resources go from space, to space and stay the hell away from major gravity wells.
So space station colonies or colonies on dwarf planets and smaller moons.
Remember, a good 90% of the cost is "how do we leave the planet" and then most of the rocket is shed. All that waste wouldn't be needed if we never touch down on planets to begin with.
Hence the interest in a lunar base, especially one that can produce fuel from local water