Is asteroid mining just a meme, or will it become a reality?

>>7912738
companies do this shit all the time. they are called pump n' dumps, or boondoggles. basically you get to pay yourself a salary blowing through other peoples money while you basically do nothing, and its totally legal.

good work if you can get it as an engineer.

>>7912738
>will it become a reality?
Eventually.

Once you have a serious off-world economy going you'll see strange things happening though, the possibility of enforcing a space based economy will be challenging for earth governments.

I had a chat with one of my lecturers at uni about this once, he said asteroid mining is more than likely going to become a reality in our lifetimes since we're going to run out of certain materials/elements soon (like say, helium) and at that point it'll be a profitable investment. Although for the next 10-20 years at least, I don't really see it happening.

File: TheExpanse_science_103_04.jpg (38KB, 900x506px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 900x506px

>tfw you were born too early to get a qt Belter gf

>>7912811
And the get nailgunned to a wall....

File: image.jpg (32KB, 306x306px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 306x306px

>>7912738
>every mining company on Earth literally goes bankrupt if commodity prices goes down by a few bucks
>Expecting mining ore from asteroids to be cost efficient

File: 1456834525153.jpg (122KB, 634x875px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 634x875px

>>7912835
>frogs can show emotions

>>7912738
It's a meme and will always remain a meem.

>>7914163
In the 1930s traveling to Mars was the biggest meme out there hence all the sci-fi comedies about it.

All comes down to launch costs and operating costs
Once you are mining up in space, then you are building up in space, and creating a whole economy up there.

>>7912738

Asteroid mining will coincide with the post-scarcity era

>advanced automation
>unlimited materials

>>7912769

>the possibility of enforcing a space based economy will be challenging for earth governments.

US lands are managed by the Department of the Interior.

hint: there's only going to be one country doing space mining

>>7914540

It's not particularly difficult to redirect asteroids, depending on their location and size. You'd only have to get them into a high earth orbit with a probe then send up more probes to mine it and send materials down piecemeal. It can be done using conventional technology (regular rockets and drills).

Materials aren't unlimited either, given that the further away from earth you venture the longer the trip to and from.

File: 1344116017085.jpg (136KB, 1104x708px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 1104x708px

>>7914827
Get over yourself faggot

ESA are th eonly ones who have landed on a moving comet, not NASA

Between ESA and the Russians you Americucks are moving closer towards irrelevance
Between

>>7914882

The ESA is also running into constant financial problems due to the combined debt and migrant crises that are sucking up money in the EU. Also, the ESA is dominated by France and not the UK. The only thing the UK has is Skylon, which only exists due to the proposed SABRE engine. But, due to continual budget cuts to the RAF BAE expects to only have one willing buyer, the USAF.

At any rate, NASA is the only people actually planning on Moon and Mars missions in the next 10-20 years. While the ESA has only *one* heavy lift vehicle (Ariane), the US has three (SLS, Falcon, Vulcan). Each of these vehicles will outclass Soyuz as launch costs will be lower due to increased capacity. Despite a 5-year delay things are moving as planned in the US.

File: Barringer_Crater_aerial_photo_by_USGS.jpg (3MB, 2400x1605px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2400x1605px

>>7914830

It is going to be difficult to get the authorization, though. Nobody's going to let you redirect several billion tons of rock onto an Earth intercept unless they can be absolutely sure you're not going to fuck it up.

>>7914942

Asteroids aren't always large. Some are actually quite small (say, the size of a building). Also, depending on how said redirect is setup, it'll have less deltav then a normal asteroid and thus pose much less of a threat to people should it fall into a collision course.

Putting something into a high earth orbit (say, beyond the moon's orbit) doesn't mean it'll eventually aerocapture and crash into earth like most LEO satellites will eventually end up doing.

>>7914827
>hint: there's only going to be one country doing space mining
Yep, that's Luxembourg, and by extension Yurop

File: 1347313371559.jpg (2MB, 4411x2480px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4411x2480px

>>7914933
>US has three (SLS, Falcon, Vulcan)
Too bad none of them exist. A lot of wild claims can be made about imaginary vehicles. Besides, you only need one launcher to launch something. Good thing we have the best one in the world then, isn't it?

File: gay.jpg (44KB, 329x399px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 329x399px

>>7914933

>mfw the RAAF has better equipment then the RAF

>>7914971

And what's Ariane 5 planned to do? Standard probe duty through 2020. The ESA itself is planning on using Orion capsules for manned flights past 2020 since they are too cheap to make their own. After 2020 it'll be NASA doing all the heavy lifting again. Meanwhile Russia won't be able to compete as their Soyuz rockets will be totally outclassed by ones that can launch probes in bulk.

And this all assumes that money keeps flowing in. For all of NASA's issues, their money issues are all squared away now that they got their shit together with SLS and Orion. Meanwhile, Roscosmos is dependent on the price of oil while the ESA will basically be over if the EU starts breaking apart (something which will begin should the UK vote to leave in June).