If boomer rocks are worthless, why bother mining space for them?
If boomer rocks are worthless, why bother mining space for them?
lots of raw materials are necessary but not valuable.
the worth of gold and silver has nothing to do with whether we need them or not.
necessary but not valuable
Please elaborate. I know you're gaslighting but i'm curious about your narrative.
tin is necessary, relatively scarce, running out.
but it's not $3500/oz
in fact it's nearly worthless. But if we run out we'd still go to space to mine it. Not because it's valuable, but because we need it.
lots of metals are like this. Necessary but not valuable.
risk death in vaccum, harsh space conditions
invest billions of dollars for unnessesary rocks no one makes any profit off
This makes zero sense.
Because we need our gold plated HDMI cables to get the FASTEST speed
why not go to space and make giant structures beyond human comprehension?
thinks robots die
thinks money is the only measure of utility
thinks money matters at all
you're facing a brave new world where money doesn't matter and people don't go to space
No one actually involved in spaceflight thinks this will happen. Mining the top of Everest or the bottom of the Marianas trench would be 100x easier, and just digging another, deeper hole to mine from literally anywhere else would be 100x easier still.
This is sci-fi nonsense
muh magic robots
When automation like that exists you can talk, but it doesn't
I remember seeing a bunch of "gold will be worthless soon" FUD in the mid 2000s too. Funny how that seems to always happen whenever there's a financial crisis and gold prices take off.
You tell me why.
If money does not matter why does he hoard it?
Also seafloor "mining" and quantum alchemy
If money does not matter why does he hoard it?
he doesn't
billionaires rarely have very much money.
smart people don't hoard money
okay I'll tell you why.
make big ass spaceships.
make big ass factories in space.
make big ass in space.
hope that helps.
billionaires rarely have very much money.
Nice.
When automation like that exists you can talk, but it doesn't
It's already in use in mines all over the world
it's also the same tech we use to kill enemies on the other side of the planet while sitting in an air conditioned office
Hitler did nothing wrong
I’m phone posting, fuck Jannie’s. They can’t ban me in anyway that matters
I stack silver and gold and yes
THEY WILL BE REVALUED.
His "money" is equity in a business
equity in a business has a money value, but it isn't money.
Dude, you are gaslit beyond saving.
ass spaceships? Its clearly a dick
I work in mining, I've seen thousands of workers replaced by remote mining equipment.
this is old news, it happened decades ago.
I work in mining,
Dude.
there is a whole world outside of the congo jamal
this one mine is how every mine works
I won the argument!
why are stackers so dumb?
Do you think the world ore distribution is the same as in Minecraft?
do you think asteroids have rich ore deposits?
that's sort of the problem. You have to mine 5000 tons of iron and nickel to get a gram of gold.
Imagine being a stacktard. Rocks are worthless.
clearly they're not worthless. Or people wouldn't spend trillions of dollars per year getting them.
by the time we can mine in space they'll be worthless, but so will your crypto.
Of course, current technology has its limitations, so this book is just a concept proposed by scientists who want to earn royalties. The same concept has emerged in the 20th century.
If we have more technology in the future, we will definitely find a way to identify the mineral content of the planet. I believe our first target will definitely not be gold. Gold cannot be used to make an SR-101 that can fly at Mach 20 in the stratosphere.
I'd guess nanobots will be the space miners. We already have bacteria on earth capable of extracting metals, it would be a short step to build something synthetic to do the same task.
I was just saying what you were saying here Please make up your mind. Are they worthless or not?
you aren't very smart.
I said their worth has nothing to do with mining them in space.
we mine what we need, even if it's worthless.
You made me feel scared.
we mine what we need, even if it's worthless.
If it's worthless, why do you mine it?
because we need it.
grains have always been relatively worthless but we still work our asses off to grow them.
water is close to worthless but everyone will work to get it.
because we need it.
That's not the definition of "worthless". You have been gaslit.
ESL or just stupid?
Dude...
having trouble with "or"?
The real value of asteroid mining is for having raw materials already in space, rather than having to boost them out of Earth's gravity well.
At present, mining on the Moon would probably be more economical, not to mention much easier since it has gravity, and a lot of our industrial processes kind of expect a gravitational field to exist to help move things along (e.g., blast furnace).
Overall, it depends on where the particular resources are needed, and how much energy would be required to send a spaceship out to where they are located and to bring them back to where they are needed.
Given the likely "boomer rock" content of asteroids, it's not likely for them to be economical to mine, even though some of them may have a lot of gold content. But for iron or aluminum to make a space station or Moon habitats? Very economical.
First world mines pay skilled workers a decent salary to operate heavy machinery. And guess what? Ausfags don’t have any problem selling their minerals at a competitive rate on the international market.
grains have always been relatively worthless
Grains were arguably the first real store of value in human history. We farm then because you can stick em in a storehouse and eat them years later.
You guys really should do some basic reading on how economics work. Like come on man, this is all econ 101 tier shit…
The word VALUE, it is to be observed, has two different meanings, and sometimes expresses the utility of some particular object, and sometimes the power of purchasing other goods which the possession of that object conveys. The one may be called "value in use;" the other, "value in exchange." The things which have the greatest value in use have frequently little or no value in exchange; on the contrary, those which have the greatest value in exchange have frequently little or no value in use. Nothing is more useful than water: but it will purchase scarcely anything; scarcely anything can be had in exchange for it. A diamond, on the contrary, has scarcely any use-value; but a very great quantity of other goods may frequently be had in exchange for it.
I see. That is actually the best explanation i got here. Thank you kind sir.
relatively
compared to gold
grain is worth far less than gold by mass, but we worked just as hard to produce grains as we did gold. Maybe even harder.
so are we ever going to join the galactic federation ?
we aren't even surviving the great filter