Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

chasonreddit t1_ja91era wrote

While I love the idea, I have to ask. I've never actually run the numbers, but wouldn't asteroid mining be even more efficient?

Let's ignore the time factor for a Holman orbit to those asteroids and assume we are thinking long term. It seems the total energy outlay (which is really what all space travel is about) is much smaller per tonne to move a small asteroid into lunar orbit or HEO than it would be even to boost it from the moon.

And they come in all flavors: carbon based, ferric, silicates, ice, probably heavy metals, but we really haven't looked for them yet. What do you need and put 10,000 tonnes of it into orbit.

1

Zestyclose-Ad-9420 t1_ja9ehzk wrote

I imagine the time factor is actually the main factor vs the moon.

1

chasonreddit t1_ja9fzu0 wrote

Yes. You notice how I cleverly added "ignoring the time factor". There are near Earth asteroids, but I don't know the density or types. In today's world you can't make an investment with a 45 year payback.

If we could develop vehicles that didn't need low-energy orbits we could.. but that takes a space infrastructure that would take the resource we need. It's a total bootstrap problem.

1