There are multiple different things that we call space colonization that all have a different case.
Agreed. “A base in low earth orbit” and “A base on earth’s moon” have much stronger economic cases than the others.
But note “at current prices”. Obviously, if we brought down a few trillions of tons of copper, the price of that metal might suffer a slight dip.
That’s an argument that can reduce the size of space colonies but not one that leads us to have no space colonies at all.
The advantage of space is that there’s a lot of resources available; the disadvantage is that there are huge fixed costs to getting there. I’m highlighting why the “lots of resources” is not enough to overcome “huge fixed costs”.
It’s plausible that it’s helpful to have computers that are stored at a place that can easily be cooled down to very cold temperatures.
Interesting argument, but wouldn’t bases in low-to-moon Earth orbit be enough for this?
the disadvantage is that there are huge fixed costs to getting there.
If SpaceX manages to produce Starship at the planned cost, you get 100,000 kg of stuff to the asteroid of your choosing for single-digit millions.
It’s not clear to me where the huge fixed costs are supposed to come from. SpaceX manages to do their tech development for single billions per year. The cost for mining might be similar and pale in comparison to the hundreds of billions made with mining every year.
Interesting argument, but wouldn’t bases in low-to-moon Earth orbit be enough for this?
Getting rid of heat when you are in space isn’t easy. It’s easier when you are in touch with a large body of mass that’s very cold
I read a bit more and the price is a bit higher then I initially assumed. The planned marginal cost is 17 million for SpaceX as you need a multiple launching to bring the fuel up.
17 million buys you the Starship (so that it can travel a while to the asteroid) and 6 launches to get the fuel up.
That’s the capability that Elon expects to exist next year.
Agreed. “A base in low earth orbit” and “A base on earth’s moon” have much stronger economic cases than the others.
The advantage of space is that there’s a lot of resources available; the disadvantage is that there are huge fixed costs to getting there. I’m highlighting why the “lots of resources” is not enough to overcome “huge fixed costs”.
Interesting argument, but wouldn’t bases in low-to-moon Earth orbit be enough for this?
If SpaceX manages to produce Starship at the planned cost, you get 100,000 kg of stuff to the asteroid of your choosing for single-digit millions.
It’s not clear to me where the huge fixed costs are supposed to come from. SpaceX manages to do their tech development for single billions per year. The cost for mining might be similar and pale in comparison to the hundreds of billions made with mining every year.
Getting rid of heat when you are in space isn’t easy. It’s easier when you are in touch with a large body of mass that’s very cold
Interesting.
I read a bit more and the price is a bit higher then I initially assumed. The planned marginal cost is 17 million for SpaceX as you need a multiple launching to bring the fuel up.
17 million buys you the Starship (so that it can travel a while to the asteroid) and 6 launches to get the fuel up.
That’s the capability that Elon expects to exist next year.