Go for it.
"We can't afford it!" "It's not practical!"
But we can afford, and it is practical, to spend billions on: Foreign wars both with and against people who hate us? Agriculture subsidies to multi-billion $ mega-farm corporations? Free education, health care, housing, and legal services to illegal immigrants and loafers and their extended families? Lifelong payouts of full salary to politicians who got booted or retired (see previous item regarding freeloaders)? Cash payments to warlords who may -- or may not -- not F with us when our backs are turned? Over-building an intelligence infrastructure that records everything while allowing the physical infrastructure of roads, bridges, seaports, pipelines, etc, to crumble? [Insert Your Favorite Tax-Financed Boondoggle Here]?
It's a false dichotomy to suggest the sea and space are distinct choices, and that only one can win. What we need to do is GET OFF THE OVER-CROWDED LAND. Humans are both natural explorers and natural builders, and individuals can be both at various stages of life.
We're feeding on ourselves as we get crammed closer and closer together, both physically and electronically. Spread out!
It's in our nature.
We can't afford it! It isn't practical!
Sometimes, that's people holding you back, and sometimes, that's reality hitting you in the face. Ever see the political cartoon of the 2012 obama "Forward" campaign sticker heading towards a cliff?
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/121415/economics-mining-space.asp
The amount of platinum that has been mined all-time in human history is 16 tons, according to
Zero Hedge. That means that at today’s prices, an asteroid that matched all historic platinum production would equate to a value of just over $435 million.
That sounds great, but it has been estimated that the costs involved in an asteroid-mining venture would come in around $120 billion US. Ouch. That results in a loss of about $119.5 billion. That is not so great.
Glad you asked. According to
InfoMine.com, the accuracy of pre-feasibility studies for traditional, on-earth mines range from 20% to 30%. If a pre-feasibility study conducted on earth is accurate only 20% to 30% of the time, how accurate can a feasibility study be for an asteroid.
Let’s find out.
That means that there's only a 20-30% chance the estimate for how rich a vein on earth will be is accurate. An unknown asteroid, shrouded in nickle-iron would be even less accurate, most likely.
The Bottom Line
The economic prospects of space mining sound wondrous: a star-scape filled with asteroid fueling stations ready to power the next inter-planetary jump; precious-metal enriched asteroids whose value is greater than the gross domestic product of Tonga. The economic reality of mining in space, though, is much more down to earth: The costs are exorbitant, earth-bound feasibility studies are not highly accurate, and even if they were, they can’t be used in space. Until these gaps are closed, it is going to be some time before we can profitably fuel up the old rocket in the garage, load up the snacks and go mine some space platinum.
Da Vinci had a working idea for a flying machine, and for parachutes, and for tanks, but we didn't see them become reality for centuries. Why? Because the technical level wasn't there yet to make them viable, and no amount of hope could change that.
We see today the affects of charging forward with a dream. Check out the energy infrastructure of Germany. They new, in their heart of hearts, that renewable energy is the future, to save the planet. And so, they pushed forward, in spite of reality. And now, they face blackouts because they can't generate enough power. Either they have huge surpluses of power on sunny days, and have no way to store it, and have to sell the excess power at a loss, or not enough on bad days, and have to import gas power from other countries. Because the technology isn't there. That's reality.
http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/28/g...outs-because-the-wind-and-sun-wont-cooperate/
It's estimated that mining asteroids, the very easiest and most profitable thing to do in space, would cost 120 billion dollars for each individual mining operation. That's private sector money, government efforts would cost many times that. No, it's not feasible at this time.
Am I saying we should abandon efforts? No. I'm just saying that at this moment in time, it's a pipe dream, until the private sector and innovation makes things cheaper.
https://www.space.com/30008-moon-colony-cost-commercial-space-report.html
In 2005, NASA said it would cost 122 billion dollars for the government to make a moon base. With private sector help, it could now be done for 10 billion. Give it another decade or two, and it may be viable. For now, in the short term, the oceans make ore sense. The arctic alone has vast resources, not even considering nodule mining. I remember reading textbooks in 2000 about how Shale mining was impossible to be viable, and now it's helping us become energy dependent from the Saudi's. Nodule mining can make similar stride if we invest.
