|
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
November 24th 16, 05:20 AM
posted to sci.space.policy
|
|||
|
|||
Investment in asterroid mining
On Friday, November 4, 2016 at 12:21:41 PM UTC+13, Alain Fournier wrote:
Luxembourg to invest 25M€ in Planetary Resources, an asteroid mining startup. See http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/aste...ment-1.3835047 Cool. Alain Fournier https://www.scribd.com/doc/212158958/Asteroid-Mining https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20141...s-in-our-stars A solar powered self replicating machine system that's propelled by a solar powered ion rocket that masses under 300 kg - can be launched for under $1 million - as a secondary payload - and make its way to any Earth crossing asteroid. Once there, it grows to encompass the asteroid and return the rare materials to Earth. 
|
|
#3
November 24th 16, 09:32 PM
posted to sci.space.policy
|
|||
|
|||
|
Investment in asterroid mining
I agree swarm robots will revolutionise mining. I disagree that they do not exist.
http://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/r...r-space-mining
|
|
#4
November 25th 16, 07:35 PM
posted to sci.space.policy
|
|||
|
|||
|
Investment in asterroid mining
In article ,
says... I agree swarm robots will revolutionise mining. I disagree that they do not exist. http://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/r...r-space-mining You snipped all the content so you could move the goal posts. These are absolutely not self replicating like you originally asserted. Jeff -- All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone. These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends, employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
|
|
#5
November 25th 16, 10:28 PM
posted to sci.space.policy
|
|||
|
|||
|
Investment in asterroid mining
On Saturday, November 26, 2016 at 8:35:38 AM UTC+13, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article , says... I agree swarm robots will revolutionise mining. I disagree that they do not exist. http://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/r...r-space-mining You snipped all the content so you could move the goal posts. These are absolutely not self replicating like you originally asserted. Jeff -- All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone. These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends, employer, or any organization that I am a member of. Its funny you complain when it is you who can't put two and two together and reliably get four! lol. Rao, D. Bhogeswara, Choudary, U. V., Erstfeld, T. E., Williams, R. J., and Chang, Y. A., "Extraction Processes for the Production of Aluminum, Titanium, Iron, Magnesium, and Oxygen from Nonterrestrial Sources," in J. Billingham, W. Gilbreath, and B. O'Leary, eds., Space Resources and Space Settlements, NASA SP-428, 1979, pp. 257-274. http://www.islandone.org/MMSG/aasm/chapter5.htm http://www.rfreitas.com/Astro/Growin...actory1981.htm http://io9.gizmodo.com/how-self-repl...gal-1463732482
|
|
#6
November 26th 16, 02:10 PM
posted to sci.space.policy
|
|||
|
|||
|
Investment in asterroid mining
In article ,
says... On Saturday, November 26, 2016 at 8:35:38 AM UTC+13, Jeff Findley wrote: In article , says... I agree swarm robots will revolutionise mining. I disagree that they do not exist. http://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/r...r-space-mining You snipped all the content so you could move the goal posts. These are absolutely not self replicating like you originally asserted. Jeff -- All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone. These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends, employer, or any organization that I am a member of. Its funny you complain when it is you who can't put two and two together and reliably get four! lol. Rao, D. Bhogeswara, Choudary, U. V., Erstfeld, T. E., Williams, R. J., and Chang, Y. A., "Extraction Processes for the Production of Aluminum, Titanium, Iron, Magnesium, and Oxygen from Nonterrestrial Sources," in J. Billingham, W. Gilbreath, and B. O'Leary, eds., Space Resources and Space Settlements, NASA SP-428, 1979, pp. 257-274. http://www.islandone.org/MMSG/aasm/chapter5.htm Island One is mostly filled with crazys like yourself. Theories on top of theories. From your reference (from 1980?!? Holy crap, that's old!), emphasis mine: Given that in THEORY, machines can construct duplicates of themselves... CAN all machine functions required both for production and for replication and growth be implemented? http://www.rfreitas.com/Astro/Growin...actory1981.htm Also very dated (1981?!?). Furthermore, your reading comprehension sucks rocks. From your reference: Before embarking upon such an ambitious undertaking it must first be shown that machine self-replication and growth is a fundamentally feasible goal. So self replicating machines do *not* exist according to the paper you cite. Do you even *read* your sources, or just skim them for the bits that agree with your delusional world view? http://io9.gizmodo.com/how-self-repl...gal-1463732482 The third begs the question why haven't we encountered self replicating *extraterrestrial* robots. No big surprise there, it's an io9/gizmodo article. Also, no evidence that self replicating robots even exist on earth. It's all just a thought experiment. Conclusion: You're an idiot. None of *your* cites say that self replicating robots actually exist today. You're spouting decades old theories that have not yet come to fruition. Jeff -- All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone. These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends, employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
|
|
#7
November 27th 16, 01:58 AM
posted to sci.space.policy
|
|||
|
|||
|
Investment in asterroid mining
On Sunday, November 27, 2016 at 3:10:59 AM UTC+13, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article , says... On Saturday, November 26, 2016 at 8:35:38 AM UTC+13, Jeff Findley wrote: In article , says... I agree swarm robots will revolutionise mining. I disagree that they do not exist. http://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/r...r-space-mining You snipped all the content so you could move the goal posts. These are absolutely not self replicating like you originally asserted. Jeff -- All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone. These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends, employer, or any organization that I am a member of. Its funny you complain when it is you who can't put two and two together and reliably get four! lol. Rao, D. Bhogeswara, Choudary, U. V., Erstfeld, T. E., Williams, R. J., and Chang, Y. A., "Extraction Processes for the Production of Aluminum, Titanium, Iron, Magnesium, and Oxygen from Nonterrestrial Sources," in J. Billingham, W. Gilbreath, and B. O'Leary, eds., Space Resources and Space Settlements, NASA SP-428, 1979, pp. 257-274. http://www.islandone.org/MMSG/aasm/chapter5.htm Island One is mostly filled with crazys like yourself. Who's crazy? Someone who cites a NASA publication on self-replicating machine systems? Or someone who attacks NASA as being crazy? I think someone who makes adhominem attacks on NASA scientists without one scintilla of evidence is crazy. Most people do. Proceedings of the 1980 NASA/ASEE Summer Study Held at the University of Santa Clara June 23-August 29, 1980 NASA Conference Publication 2255 Theories on top of theories. From your reference (from 1980?!? Holy crap, that's old!), emphasis mine: The self replicating machine concept is even older! Here's a paper from 1966 http://cba.mit.edu/events/03.11.ASE/docs/VonNeumann.pdf From those crazy idiots at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. You know the type, top 0.1% in intelligence, very capable, and well-trained. Nothing at all like the self-styled experts who post here! lol. Given that in THEORY, machines can construct duplicates of themselves... Yes, Von-Neumann proved mathematically that such machinery can exist. The proof didn't tell us how to build one however, only the general features of such a machine. So, until a universal constructor is actually built, self-replicating machinery will be forever a THEORY. That's why the work of Vik Oliver who works here in New Zealand today, is so important. In 2005 the first self replicating machine was completed and quickly turned into the rep-rap project, where anyone of any competence can build their own self replicating machine themselves! http://reprap.org/wiki/Main_Page Of course understanding the limitations of the self-styled experts here, I would wager none of them have actually built their own self-replicating machine or have contributed in any way to the art since 2005. CAN all machine functions required both for production and for replication and growth be implemented? http://www.rfreitas.com/Astro/Growin...actory1981.htm Also very dated (1981?!?). Furthermore, your reading comprehension sucks rocks. From your reference: Newton published his Principia 5 July 1687. I suppose on that basis he's full of **** too? eh? lol. NOT! Before embarking upon such an ambitious undertaking it must first be shown that machine self-replication and growth is a fundamentally feasible goal. Yeah, like building one. So self replicating machines do *not* exist according to the paper you cite. There's this thing called 'the internet' it has something called 'search engines' here a KNOWLEDGEABLE person find vast amounts of interesting and valid information. Do you even *read* your sources, or just skim them for the bits that agree with your delusional world view? Its funny that deluded people think others who don't share their dim bulb views of reality as being deluded. http://io9.gizmodo.com/how-self-repl...gal-1463732482 The third begs the question why haven't we encountered self replicating *extraterrestrial* robots. No big surprise there, it's an io9/gizmodo article. Also, no evidence that self replicating robots even exist on earth. It's all just a thought experiment. Gismodo popularises science. Its funny how people who don't read ANY real science misread the journalistic requirement of narrative balance in a scientific report as a valid scientific conclusion. The primary reason we haven't encountered ETI is; (a) ETI is vastly more capable than us, and they would not be detectable by us unless they wanted that (b) The cosmos is really really really big! Bigger than most people imagine. (c) Interstellar travel is irreducibly dangerous - and that danger scales with distance. (d) The cosmos has been around a really long time. Longer than species exist. Travelling at 97% light speed for 1,000 years star time takes you 970 light years. That's 9.18x10^18 meters. That means that a square meter surface area has swept out 9.18*10^18 cubic meters. A volume of space 2,094 cubic KILOMETERS on a side! Now what are the odds of running across something in that volume of space that wipes out the spacecraft? (for each square meter of frontal area). Let's be optimistic - let's say its 50% - let's say its 50% for 1000 square meters over that distance. So, here's the probability of vehicle loss with distance; Distance LY Probability of Loss 1,000 50.0000000000000000% 2,000 75.0000000000000000% 5,000 96.8750000000000000% 10,000 99.9023437500000000% 20,000 99.9999046325684000% 50,000 99.9999999999999000% 100,000 100.0000000000000000% 200,000 100.0000000000000000% 500,000 100.0000000000000000% 1,000,000 100.0000000000000000% 2,000,000 100.0000000000000000% Your odds of making it in a single journey (or multiple journeys for that matter) to the Galactic Center and back is one in a trillion! The odds of winning a lottery several times in a row are greater than making it to the Galactic Center! lol. Conclusion: You're an idiot. Funny how easily arrogant and stupid people come to such conclusions. It protects them from any real self examination that would permit real growth as a decent human being. None of *your* cites say that self replicating robots actually exist today. yawn There's a thing called the internet. The first self replicating machine was widely reported in 2005 in the academic press. Since that time a global movement called 'rep rap' has been instituted. Through that movement tens of thousands of people, including myself, have built their own self replicating machinery. Any competent person knows this. You're spouting decades old theories that have not yet come to fruition. It only seems that way to those who don't understand the present situation. Jeff -- All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone. These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends, employer, or any organization that I am a member of. Jeff thinks this disclaimer will protect him. It will not.
|
|
#8
November 27th 16, 02:16 AM
posted to sci.space.policy
|
|||
|
|||
|
Fermi's Paradox
http://io9.gizmodo.com/how-self-repl...gal-1463732482 The third begs the question why haven't we encountered self replicating *extraterrestrial* robots. No big surprise there, it's an io9/gizmodo article. Also, no evidence that self replicating robots even exist on earth. It's all just a thought experiment. Gismodo popularises science. Its funny how people who don't read ANY real science misread the journalistic requirement of narrative balance in a scientific report as a valid scientific conclusion. The primary reason we haven't encountered ETI is; (a) ETI is vastly more capable than us, and they would not be detectable by us unless they wanted that (b) The cosmos is really really really big! Bigger than most people imagine. (c) Interstellar travel is irreducibly dangerous - and that danger scales with distance. (d) The cosmos has been around a really long time. Longer than species exist. Travelling at 97% light speed for 1,000 years star time takes you 970 light years. That's 9.18x10^18 meters. That means that a square meter surface area has swept out 9.18*10^18 cubic meters. A volume of space 2,094 cubic KILOMETERS on a side! Now what are the odds of running across something in that volume of space that wipes out the spacecraft? (for each square meter of frontal area). Let's be optimistic - let's say its 50% - let's say its 50% for 1000 square meters over that distance. So, here's the probability of vehicle loss with distance; Distance LY Probability of Loss 1,000 50.0000000000000000% 2,000 75.0000000000000000% 5,000 96.8750000000000000% 10,000 99.9023437500000000% 20,000 99.9999046325684000% 50,000 99.9999999999999000% 100,000 100.0000000000000000% 200,000 100.0000000000000000% 500,000 100.0000000000000000% 1,000,000 100.0000000000000000% 2,000,000 100.0000000000000000% Your odds of making it in a single journey (or multiple journeys for that matter) to the Galactic Center and back is one in a trillion! The odds of winning a lottery several times in a row are greater than making it to the Galactic Center! lol. Conclusion: You're an idiot. Funny how easily arrogant and stupid people come to such conclusions. It protects them from any real self examination that would permit real growth as a decent human being. None of *your* cites say that self replicating robots actually exist today. yawn There's a thing called the internet. The first self replicating machine was widely reported in 2005 in the academic press. Since that time a global movement called 'rep rap' has been instituted. Through that movement tens of thousands of people, including myself, have built their own self replicating machinery. Any competent person knows this. You're spouting decades old theories that have not yet come to fruition. It only seems that way to those who don't understand the present situation. Jeff -- All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone. These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends, employer, or any organization that I am a member of. Jeff thinks this disclaimer will protect him. It will not. There is a way to reliably get to a distant point, with this kind of loss mechanism. Namely, scan the self replicating ship and send a self replicating seed to build the ship at the distant location from local parts from any ONE of the seeds that happen to arrive there. Multiple seeds work together to build the ship up more quickly. WHat's the odds of total loss then? ----------------------------- Parts Distance LY Probability of Loss 10000 10000000 1.00E+12 1,000 50.0000000000000000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 2,000 75.0000000000000000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 5,000 96.8750000000000000% 0.000% 0.000% 0000% 10,000 99.9023437500000000% 0.006% 0.000% 0.000% 20,000 99.9999046325684000% 99.051% 0.007% 0.000% 50,000 99.9999999999999000% 100.000% 100.000% 99.911% 100,000 100.0000000000000000% 100.000% 100.000% 100.000% 200,000 100.0000000000000000% 100.000% 100.000% 100.000% 500,000 100.0000000000000000% 100.000% 100.000% 100.000% 1,000,000 100.0000000000000000% 100.000% 100.000% 100.000% 2,000,000 100.0000000000000000% 100.000% 100.000% 100.000% As you can see if you send 10,000 parts, you have virtual certainty of arriving at 5,000 light years but virtual certainty of loss arriving at 50,000 light years. Send 100 million parts, each capable of growing into a complete self replicating probe, and you can reliably get to 20,000 light years, but still not 50,000 light years. Expand your seed count to 1 trillion - and you start to make a dent in the 50,000 light year probability of loss.
|
|
#9
November 27th 16, 02:22 AM
posted to sci.space.policy
|
|||
|
|||
|
Fermi's Paradox
On Sunday, November 27, 2016 at 3:16:05 PM UTC+13, William Mook wrote:
http://io9.gizmodo.com/how-self-repl...gal-1463732482 The third begs the question why haven't we encountered self replicating *extraterrestrial* robots. No big surprise there, it's an io9/gizmodo article. Also, no evidence that self replicating robots even exist on earth. It's all just a thought experiment. Gismodo popularises science. Its funny how people who don't read ANY real science misread the journalistic requirement of narrative balance in a scientific report as a valid scientific conclusion. The primary reason we haven't encountered ETI is; (a) ETI is vastly more capable than us, and they would not be detectable by us unless they wanted that (b) The cosmos is really really really big! Bigger than most people imagine. (c) Interstellar travel is irreducibly dangerous - and that danger scales with distance. (d) The cosmos has been around a really long time. Longer than species exist. Travelling at 97% light speed for 1,000 years star time takes you 970 light years. That's 9.18x10^18 meters. That means that a square meter surface area has swept out 9.18*10^18 cubic meters. A volume of space 2,094 cubic KILOMETERS on a side! Now what are the odds of running across something in that volume of space that wipes out the spacecraft? (for each square meter of frontal area). Let's be optimistic - let's say its 50% - let's say its 50% for 1000 square meters over that distance. So, here's the probability of vehicle loss with distance; Distance LY Probability of Loss 1,000 50.0000000000000000% 2,000 75.0000000000000000% 5,000 96.8750000000000000% 10,000 99.9023437500000000% 20,000 99.9999046325684000% 50,000 99.9999999999999000% 100,000 100.0000000000000000% 200,000 100.0000000000000000% 500,000 100.0000000000000000% 1,000,000 100.0000000000000000% 2,000,000 100.0000000000000000% Your odds of making it in a single journey (or multiple journeys for that matter) to the Galactic Center and back is one in a trillion! The odds of winning a lottery several times in a row are greater than making it to the Galactic Center! lol. Conclusion: You're an idiot. Funny how easily arrogant and stupid people come to such conclusions. It protects them from any real self examination that would permit real growth as a decent human being. None of *your* cites say that self replicating robots actually exist today. yawn There's a thing called the internet. The first self replicating machine was widely reported in 2005 in the academic press. Since that time a global movement called 'rep rap' has been instituted. Through that movement tens of thousands of people, including myself, have built their own self replicating machinery. Any competent person knows this. You're spouting decades old theories that have not yet come to fruition. It only seems that way to those who don't understand the present situation. Jeff -- All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone. These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends, employer, or any organization that I am a member of. Jeff thinks this disclaimer will protect him. It will not. There is a way to reliably get to a distant point, with this kind of loss mechanism. Namely, scan the self replicating ship and send a self replicating seed to build the ship at the distant location from local parts from any ONE of the seeds that happen to arrive there. Multiple seeds work together to build the ship up more quickly. WHat's the odds of total loss then? ----------------------------- Parts Distance LY Probability of Loss 10000 10000000 1.00E+12 1,000 50.0000000000000000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 2,000 75.0000000000000000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 5,000 96.8750000000000000% 0.000% 0.000% 0000% 10,000 99.9023437500000000% 0.006% 0.000% 0.000% 20,000 99.9999046325684000% 99.051% 0.007% 0.000% 50,000 99.9999999999999000% 100.000% 100.000% 99.911% 100,000 100.0000000000000000% 100.000% 100.000% 100.000% 200,000 100.0000000000000000% 100.000% 100.000% 100.000% 500,000 100.0000000000000000% 100.000% 100.000% 100.000% 1,000,000 100.0000000000000000% 100.000% 100.000% 100.000% 2,000,000 100.0000000000000000% 100.000% 100.000% 100.000% As you can see if you send 10,000 parts, you have virtual certainty of arriving at 5,000 light years but virtual certainty of loss arriving at 50,000 light years. Send 100 million parts, each capable of growing into a complete self replicating probe, and you can reliably get to 20,000 light years, but still not 50,000 light years. Expand your seed count to 1 trillion - and you start to make a dent in the 50,000 light year probability of loss.. UFO's and the Alien Agenda https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWxsz38c4H0
|
|
#10
November 27th 16, 01:19 PM
posted to sci.space.policy
|
|||
|
|||
|
Investment in asterroid mining
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Sea Bed Mining - Prefigures Off-World Mining | William Mook[_2_] | Policy | 25 | June 22nd 14 04:09 AM |
| CFP with extended deadline of Mar. 11, 2009: The 2009 InternationalConference on Data Mining (DMIN'09) & Sessions on Text/Web Mining, DataMining Applications, & Data Mining for Time Series, USA, July 13-16, 2009 | A. M. G. Solo | Astronomy Misc | 0 | March 4th 09 01:32 PM |
| Super collider a MUCH better investment than ISS | Rich[_1_] | Amateur Astronomy | 11 | September 13th 08 03:10 AM |
| just now, go print a investment | Catherine D. Haugrud | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | November 14th 07 06:40 AM |
| Will the investment flood happen? | M. Scott | Policy | 26 | July 17th 03 11:45 AM |
Linear Mode
