Ways of making money from space.

[we are not alone]

Technological spinoffs are an obvious one. I would be interested to know how zero gravity can be turned into cash. Ball bearings for gyroscopes for instance. Metallurgy is another. It would be very interesting to see what new alloys could be produced. Tourism has limited potential at this time due to the high cost of getting people into orbit. Space based energy systems intrigue me. Solar power 24/7. Mining He2 from the moon. Advertising revenue? Would it be legal to put a pizza hut symbol across the face of the moon?

[swampyankee]

Several companies are making money from space now, such as the builders of the launch vehicles and the companies that operate communications satellites.
As for microgravity? Ball bearings for gyroscopes? Laser ring gyros don't need them, and I can see mechanical gyroscopes for almost any high-precision purpose, like navigation, vanishing completely if they haven't already done so. Some potential processes that may be worth while would be the simple fact that the vacuum in space -- even LEO -- is much better than that which can be achieved on Earth, which could have some profitable ramifications for ultra-high purity materials processing.

[Noclevername]

In the long run, distance is the main thing of value space provides that a single planet can't. Those who want to get away from an overcrowded Earth will eventually build their own real estate offplanet, but first we need to get to the point where there's an infrastructure for manufacturing in space, and we'll need to know how to build regenerative ecosystems so we can survive there.

[WayneFrancis]

Unless you are getting your materials from space I'd imagine that processing the material up there wouldn't be very cost effective. Very expensive to get materials up there from the surface currently.

[Noclevername]

Unless you are getting your materials from space I'd imagine that processing the material up there wouldn't be very cost effective. Very expensive to get materials up there from the surface currently.

That's another one-- space mining, to build orbital structures.

[Van Rijn]

Unless you are getting your materials from space I'd imagine that processing the material up there wouldn't be very cost effective. Very expensive to get materials up there from the surface currently.

Right, which is one reason why getting launch costs down (and reliability up) would make a big difference.

If you can find it, I'd recommend picking up a copy of The Third Industrial Revolution by G. Harry Stine. That was written back in the mid '70s when we expected we'd have regular commercial space flights in a decade or two. If that had happened, I suspect that manufacturing would have gone somewhat differently in some industries - there are advantages to microgravity and cheap super vacuum that could be useful for microelectronics, for instance. The cost of materials isn't that big an issue there, but you do need to be able to count on access.

There are things we wouldn't do in space now, because "good enough" alternatives were found, but I suspect that if costs are brought down (as with reusable spacecraft), there will be renewed research and some manufacturing will go to space for products to be used on Earth.

[WayneFrancis]

Well if you remove transportation costs from the equation then
1) Power generation
2) Resource acquisition
3) Tourism
4) Real estate
5) Prisons

[we are not alone]

Prisons? Isn't locking people up in cages cruel enough without subjecting them to long term radiation exposure and bone loss?

Tourism may not be the drawcard we once thought. Even sex in space isn't as exciting as it sounds. There is no friction so its actually rather difficult and you keep bouncing off the walls.

Mining Gold, Platinum and Beryllium look like the best options for getting a foothold out there followed by energy systems once those industries are established.

[WayneFrancis]

Prisons? Isn't locking people up in cages cruel enough without subjecting them to long term radiation exposure and bone loss?

radiation is only a problem with inappropriate shielding. Bone loss is less of a problem if they come back to Earth.

Tourism may not be the drawcard we once thought. Even sex in space isn't as exciting as it sounds. There is no friction so its actually rather difficult and you keep bouncing off the walls.

But if the cost of getting there isn't an issue would you say no to going?

My main point is if you arbitrarily remove some of the cons then that can arbitrarily make lost of things more inviting.

[BigDon]

Hey swamp, do laser ring gyros work if the power dies?

[swampyankee]

Hey swamp, do laser ring gyros work if the power dies?

Probably not.

[neilzero]

We produce quite a few things here on Earth, that are at least slight hazards to the people living near the plant. When it is practical to build the plant on a small asteroid in the asteroid belt, or farther away, I picture that happening to avoid law suits and government mandates.
Much farther future, it may be practical to build the equivalent of a Dyson sphere at the cloud tops of Saturn. The gravity is a very convenient 1 g. If several concentric spheres completely enclose Saturn, heat loss from the planet will be reduced, making the cloud tops perhaps 100 degrees c warmer than at present: The outer surface of the outer sphere is much cooler, so the temperature difference can be used as an energy source, thus preventing the cloud tops from getting still hotter. Perhaps 1000 times the present human population of Earth can live between the concentric spheres. Birch suggested we do this for Jupiter, but the 2 plus gravity of Jupiter cloud tops is oppressive. Neil

[Noclevername]

Bone loss is less of a problem if they come back to Earth.

Or with spin to simulate gravity.

[WayneFrancis]

Or with spin to simulate gravity.

Whooops I meant to say "Bone loss is a less of a problem if they NEVER come back to Earth.

[Jens]

Well if you remove transportation costs from the equation then
5) Prisons

I doubt that it was really meant that seriously. But what would be the advantage? That people couldn't escape? I think you can build a pretty secure prison on earth already, for much less cost. Maybe an island in San Francisco bay or something like that.

Also, getting food up to the prisoners would be so expensive that I can't imagine how it could possibly be better than sending them to say Siberia.

[Jens]

Mining Gold, Platinum and Beryllium look like the best options for getting a foothold out there followed by energy systems once those industries are established.

If you mean for export to earth, I don't know all that much about it but I doubt it could be commercially viable. Those substances aren't really that expensive on earth.

[Noclevername]

Also, getting food up to the prisoners would be so expensive that I can't imagine how it could possibly be better than sending them to say Siberia.

Have them grow their own. (Frankly I'm not sold on the prisons idea, but it would be no more or less complex than any colonization program.)

[swampyankee]

Have them grow their own. (Frankly I'm not sold on the prisons idea, but it would be no more or less complex than any colonization program.)

George Zebrowski wrote a novel, Brute Orbits, about this idea. I don't think he approved.

[BigDon]

Space prisons? Please, Antartica would still be a better choice. Much more habitable, easier to get to and cheaper to live in. Air gone bad? Open a window and kick up the heater. And you ain't pulling an "Alcatraz" without a lot of outside help.

Trouble is the bigger your population the less resources you have to waste on people who didn't learn right from wrong the first time. When the US population gets to 600 million we are going to need about 300 thousand new jobs a *day* for the people who got it right!

What's left for the knuckleheads?

[max8166]

I think Space Based Solar Power IS the number 1 reason to obtain profit from Space.

Think about how you live today. The food you eat was moved on a truck, grown with fertilizers, kept cool in a refrigerator all created by fossil fuels.
The hot water for you bath, the electricity for your lights,computer,iphone,TV was partly produced by fossils fuels.
The water in your tap was pumped to you by fossil fuels.
The fuel in your Car, the fuel for the plane that takes you on holiday. All currently derived from fossil fuels.
Just about any product you can think of requires energy to make and transport to you.
Now the thing about fossil fuels is that they were made millions of years ago by capturing carbon, over millions of years. They are what is known as unsustainable, which means they will eventually run out. As will nuclear if you are prepared to risk them. Not to mention the impeding disaster which is climate change due to pumping all that CO2 into the atmosphere over a very short time:
depopu13_18.jpg ..... dn11638-2_640.jpg
Solar panels are at least 75% more efficient in space than on Earth due to the atmosphere. The minerals required are almost certainly available by mining the moon costing 22 times less energy to orbit them to GEO stationary orbit around the Earth from the Moon. And that energy could be mostly free solar power too.

[we are not alone]

radiation is only a problem with inappropriate shielding.

For a planet or asteroid an underground structure could work.

Bone loss is only a problem if they come back to Earth.

We haven't tried living in space that long. I expect it would shorten human life considerably. Centripetal force could replace gravity but the coriolis effect could cause some stress to biological functions.

But if the cost of getting there isn't an issue would you say no to going?

Me personally? No. I hate zero gravity. Tried it a couple of times and the sensation of falling is very disconcerting to me.

I think Space Based Solar Power IS the number 1 reason to obtain profit from Space.

The cost of establishing those systems is rather prohibitive. It would take decades to make a return on the investment. Better I think to get a foothold in space via space mining and then establish those energy systems to both power the mining industry and export energy to earth.

[Noclevername]

Centripetal force could replace gravity but the coriolis effect could cause some stress to biological functions.

Only for very small-diameter rotations. For any habitat large enough for permanent human settlement, it will be pretty much unnoticeable unless you're trying to catch a fly ball.

[we are not alone]

Ok but if you want enough shielding then you'll need about 4 metres of thick wall? So you have this massive structure with negligible coriolis effect but extremely thick walls spinning rapidly. What kind of gravity could you hope to obtain without the whole thing flying apart? I think O'Neil colonies were toying around with 10% G.

[Noclevername]

Ok but if you want enough shielding then you'll need about 4 metres of thick wall? So you have this massive structure with negligible coriolis effect but extremely thick walls spinning rapidly. What kind of gravity could you hope to obtain without the whole thing flying apart? I think O'Neil colonies were toying around with 10% G.

O'Neill mostly toyed around with full Earth G at the outer rim. But you need not spin the shield-- it can be a static shell covering the spin section.