There are multiple different things that we call space colonization that all have a different case.
1) A Mars base
2) A base on earth’s moon
3) A base on other moons
4) A base on an asteroid that’s for mining the asteroid
5) A base in low earth orbit
6) A base simply floating around in deep space
So what’s the economic value of current mining? Well, mining represented 1.2% of world GDP in 2016; but roughly 50% of this is coal, which is mainly used for energy (we’ll get to that later). This is a small fraction of the current economy, and one that is in decline (over the century span, if not the decade span).
The noncoal portion is still 375 billion per year. That’s a lot of money.
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.
Is it any easier to design AI in space versus doing it on Earth?
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. Maybe someone finds a way to build quantum computer that needs superconductivity.
At a time where our moon isn’t used at all, it’s the prime place if you want to build a building that needs to cool a lot of things down to temperatures at which superconductivity happens.
If that industry picks up on our moon, the moon will get warmer and there’s a reason to go to other moons that are used and still very cold.
It might also be that you have quantum computers that have to additionally be shielded very strongly from radiation and vibrations to work.
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.
Is it any easier to design AI in space versus doing it on Earth?
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. Maybe someone finds a way to build quantum computer that needs superconductivity.
Just a reminder that the LHC is pretty big, and cooled to 3K. Superconductivity produces very little waste heat. Refrigeration isn’t that hard. We aren’t going to see space based quantum compute until keeping it cool on earth is impractical. By the time we are dealing in quantum computers larger than the LHC, we are looking at more than enough compute to brute force superintelligence. (Probably, there is some chance of giant space computers but no superintelligence if people are really squandering the compute.)
Cooling the LHC does cost massive amounts of electricity:
CERN uses 1.3 terawatt hours of electricity annually. That’s enough power to fuel 300,000 homes for a year in the United Kingdom.
It’s plausible that shipping a kilo to the moon with SpaceX starship will soon cost ~50$. That’s a low cost for shipping computer chips.
In addition iron/alluminion is very plenty on the moon so you can easily create things that are to be used on the moon but that isn’t complex like casing out of them.
The LHC seemed to cost around $4.75 billion to build and weights around 14,000-tonne. That suggest you need something like 140 starship trips to bring it up. At $5 million per trip that’s $1 billion.
If a LHC that that would operate at −240 C would cost half of the amount to build you might save a billion by shipping it up to the moon.
There are multiple different things that we call space colonization that all have a different case.
1) A Mars base
2) A base on earth’s moon
3) A base on other moons
4) A base on an asteroid that’s for mining the asteroid
5) A base in low earth orbit
6) A base simply floating around in deep space
The noncoal portion is still 375 billion per year. That’s a lot of money.
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.
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. Maybe someone finds a way to build quantum computer that needs superconductivity.
At a time where our moon isn’t used at all, it’s the prime place if you want to build a building that needs to cool a lot of things down to temperatures at which superconductivity happens.
If that industry picks up on our moon, the moon will get warmer and there’s a reason to go to other moons that are used and still very cold.
It might also be that you have quantum computers that have to additionally be shielded very strongly from radiation and vibrations to work.
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.
Just a reminder that the LHC is pretty big, and cooled to 3K. Superconductivity produces very little waste heat. Refrigeration isn’t that hard. We aren’t going to see space based quantum compute until keeping it cool on earth is impractical. By the time we are dealing in quantum computers larger than the LHC, we are looking at more than enough compute to brute force superintelligence. (Probably, there is some chance of giant space computers but no superintelligence if people are really squandering the compute.)
Cooling the LHC does cost massive amounts of electricity:
It’s plausible that shipping a kilo to the moon with SpaceX starship will soon cost ~50$. That’s a low cost for shipping computer chips.
In addition iron/alluminion is very plenty on the moon so you can easily create things that are to be used on the moon but that isn’t complex like casing out of them.
The LHC seemed to cost around $4.75 billion to build and weights around 14,000-tonne. That suggest you need something like 140 starship trips to bring it up. At $5 million per trip that’s $1 billion.
If a LHC that that would operate at −240 C would cost half of the amount to build you might save a billion by shipping it up to the moon.