Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Planetary Resources Inc. Asteroid Mining


chknwing

Recommended Posts

A new company backed by two Google Inc. GOOG -0.54% billionaires, film director James Cameron and other space exploration proponents is aiming high in the hunt for natural resources—with mining asteroids the possible target.

The venture, called Planetary Resources Inc., revealed little in a press release this week except to say that it would "overlay two critical sectors—space exploration and natural resources—to add trillions of dollars to the global GDP" and "help ensure humanity's prosperity." The company is formally unveiling its plans at an event Tuesday in Seattle.

While the announcement may cause some people to snicker at what could be a page out of a sci-fi novel or a Hollywood movie scene, Planetary Resources is making its debut just as scientists at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and other groups are embracing the notion of mining "near-Earth asteroids" and providing blueprints for how such a feat would be accomplished.

more http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303513404577356190967904210.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it goes through, it's the beginning of the real space age. Everything before this has been child's play. This will be the true beginning of the Human Space Age.

If it happens. It might remain talk and nothing more than that for some time until a cheaper way to get out of the atmosphere is found. Space Elevators come to mind but would be so costly right now and technologically infeasible atm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be so much cheaper to mine methane-3 from the moon. It's simple, go up to the moon and first build a giant magnetic rail launcher. Then, you can mine all the cheap inexpensive solid helium you want, process it there, and send it down the rail back to earth. Build it the right way, and you can plunk that sucker of a canister almost anywhere on Earth, at least once a day. Granted, we have to figure out a way to stop that storage tank from becoming a giant bomb, but the biggest expense is the initial investment plus the transport of goods and raw materials to the moon.

Congratulations, you have just built yourself a multi-billion dollar company while solving the world energy problem. It's way better than this plan, anyways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be so much cheaper to mine methane-3 from the moon. It's simple, go up to the moon and first build a giant magnetic rail launcher. Then, you can mine all the cheap inexpensive solid helium you want, process it there, and send it down the rail back to earth. Build it the right way, and you can plunk that sucker of a canister almost anywhere on Earth, at least once a day. Granted, we have to figure out a way to stop that storage tank from becoming a giant bomb, but the biggest expense is the initial investment plus the transport of goods and raw materials to the moon.

Congratulations, you have just built yourself a multi-billion dollar company while solving the world energy problem. It's way better than this plan, anyways.

yea but what happens when the computer controlling it becomse self aware, the lunies revolt and we're sitting here with tanks of helium raining down on us from the moon. What then huh?

better to just not do anything... much safer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be so much cheaper to mine methane-3 from the moon. It's simple, go up to the moon and first build a giant magnetic rail launcher. Then, you can mine all the cheap inexpensive solid helium you want, process it there, and send it down the rail back to earth. Build it the right way, and you can plunk that sucker of a canister almost anywhere on Earth, at least once a day. Granted, we have to figure out a way to stop that storage tank from becoming a giant bomb, but the biggest expense is the initial investment plus the transport of goods and raw materials to the moon.

Congratulations, you have just built yourself a multi-billion dollar company while solving the world energy problem. It's way better than this plan, anyways.

There is no way that would ever be cheaper than just using renewable resources already available on earth for energy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

yea but what happens when the computer controlling it becomse self aware, the lunies revolt and we're sitting here with tanks of helium raining down on us from the moon. What then huh?

better to just not do anything... much safer.

We can just send a few warships up there and nuke them out. They have no weapons, except mining equipment. Rep. for getting the reference, by the way.

There is no way that would ever be cheaper than just using renewable resources already available on earth for energy.

Well obviously, but neither is mining asteroids.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Congratulations do they know who the father is?
    • In my opinion Fitterer was probably right about not paying McCaffrey. Now not wanting to "pay RBs" in my opinion isn't something you want to set in stone, to me it all comes down to the individual.
    • Maybe I'm just not understanding, but everywhere that I have read says that signing bonuses go against the cap prorated by as much as five years. The following example uses Andrew Luck's rookie contract as an example. "Take Andrew Luck, the first overall pick in the 2012 NFL draft. Luck signed a four-year contract with the Colts worth $22.1 million and included a $14.5 million signing bonus. Rather than a $14.5 million cap hit in 2012, the Colts spread out his signing bonus over the life of his contract. The hit against the cap would be $3.625 million per year over four years instead of a direct cap hit of $14.5 million directly in 2012. This gave the Colts more leverage and cap flexibility in signing other players." https://www.the33rdteam.com/nfl-signing-bonuses-explained/ I don't know why some of you think that signing bonuses aren't counted against the cap over the length of the contract, but whatever.   "The bonus with a signing is usually the most garish aspect of a rookie contract. Bonus is the immediate cash players receive when they ink a deal. It factors into the cap, but only for the whole contract duration, in terms of salary cap calculations. In the case of Bryce Young’s $24.6 million signing bonus, that’s prorated to approximately $6.15 million per season over a four-year deal. This format allows teams to handle the cap and provides rookies with some short-term fiscal stability, which is important given the high injury risk in this league." https://collegefootballnetwork.com/how-rookie-contracts-work-in-the-nfl/ I understand how signing bonuses can be a useful tool in order to manage the cap, and as one of the article suggests, signing bonuses may become important if you have a tight cap, but the bill is always going to come due. I'm not necessarily referring to you Tuka, but it seems to me that others simply don't want to understand that fact which is why they're reacting to what I'm saying negatively. How odd. In any event, I have a better general understanding of why signing bonuses are used now, and it's generally to fit salaries under the cap. Surely players, whether they be rookies or not, love a signing bonus because they get a good portion of their money up front. This in turn gives them more security and probably amounts to tax benefits as well. I also understand why teams would not want to use signing bonuses, particularly for players or draftees who have a higher probability of being gone before a contract even ends.
×
×
  • Create New...