Yeah! Asteroids, baby! :)

NewsDaily: Into deep space: second U.S. firm takes aim at mining asteroids

Quote:

---

A team of entrepreneurs and engineers unveiled plans on Tuesday for a space mining company that would tap nearby asteroids for raw materials to fuel satellites and manufacture components in orbit.

---

Where is Hanna to share my joy?.. :cry:

It's been theorized (by some people) that the modern Western-style capitalism is near collapse because of the various monetary-value related issues and could only operate on a hype and not under the normal conditions. To which I always replied that the space mining is the next big hype which effects would overshadow just about anything we've seen so far. And whoever would jump on that faster (technologically developed countries, that is) would benefit the most.

So, I repeat my call again, my dear socialist friends: rather than breaking spears on how to distribute the resources more evenly, let's work on how to get more resources for the entire humanity. That way, the entire humanity would live better.

I guess, some of the presently oil-exporting and other third-world countries which prefer to keep the mentality of its people in the Middle Ages might not like that idea, as the focus shift into the more intellectually labourous processes will most likely disturb the society principles they live in. So, will there be the WWIII or the pragmatism would take over? What do you think?

Я с трудом понимаю, что ты пишешь, Крокодил. Такой сложный английский!
Я не понял, война за что? За ресурсы в космосе? Чтобы отнять технологии для освоения ресурсов в космосе? Или войну начнут страны третьего мира, as the focus shift into the more intellectually labourous processes will most likely disturb the society principles they live in? Последнее мне кажется абсурдом: из-за такого пустяка начинать войну. Правда, я могу не осознавать всей серьезности того желания. В общем, я только могу сказать, что я считаю, войны из-за этого у нас не будет (ты ведь спрашивал в шутку?), и надеюсь, что the pragmatism (и всякие другие благодетели рода людского) WILL take over и войн вообще больше не будет. Однако другая половина меня считает, что народу становится все больше, а ресурсы не бесконечны на нашей планете (пока: я верю что мы когда-нибудь сможем обеспечить полный или почти полный круговорот веществ), а природа (или инстинкты, глубоко засевшие в наших генах) понимает, что лучше сохранить небольшую популяцию, чем потом всей ордой сдохнуть от голода и холода.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kib

Я не понял, война за что? За ресурсы в космосе? Чтобы отнять технологии для освоения ресурсов в космосе? Или войну начнут страны третьего мира, as the focus shift into the more intellectually labourous processes will most likely disturb the society principles they live in? Последнее мне кажется абсурдом: из-за такого пустяка начинать войну.

---

Из-за передела ролей в мировой экономике. Ну, вот представь себе такой расклад. Допустим, Иран продаёт нефть и покупает практически всё остальное. А кому он продаёт нефть? Стране, которая потребляет энергию и что-то производит, допустим США. При новом раскладе, выясняется, что США не так нуждается в иранской нефти, так как в новом мире основным топливом будет водород и США может, допустим, перейти на водородную экономику. Вывод: Ирану грозит обнищание с последующим беспорядком внутри страны и возможной смене руководства, приоритетов и т.д. Вопрос: что должен делать Иран? Первый вариант: объединиться с другими заинтересованными странами и устроить США изматывающую войну на разорение. Тогда у США не будет возможности продолжать заниматься новейшими разработками ещё очень долго, и вся проблема уходит в долгий ящик. Второй вариант: сказать: "Ребята, я с вами! Буду плясать под вашу дудку, стану секулярным государством, выучу свою молодежь вашим технологиям и вообще буду как вы. Ну, соберу в космосе что уж там останется от вас." Вот какой вариант ты считаешь более реальным?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kib

Однако другая половина меня считает, что народу становится все больше, а ресурсы не бесконечны на нашей планете (пока: я верю что мы когда-нибудь сможем обеспечить полный или почти полный круговорот веществ), а природа (или инстинкты, глубоко засевшие в наших генах) понимает, что лучше сохранить небольшую популяцию, чем потом всей ордой сдохнуть от голода и холода.

---

Здраво. Только скажи - кому удаётся сохранить небольшой прирост популяции (1-2 ребёнка в семье), а кого этот вопрос не трогает (7-12 детей в семье)? Соответственно, и подход к проблеме "жертв среди мирного населения" сильно разница.

Приданное, конечно, свежо, но вот верится как-то с трудом.:dunno:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mishau_

Приданное, конечно, свежо, но вот верится как-то с трудом.:dunno:

---

Ну, в качестве приданного, вот инфа 100% :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid_mining

In 1997 it was speculated that a relatively small metallic asteroid with a diameter of 1.6 km (0.99 mi) contains more than $20 trillion USD worth of industrial and precious metals.^[6][30] A comparatively small M-type asteroid with a mean diameter of 1 kilometre (0.62 mi) could contain more than two billion metric tons of iron–nickel ore,^[31] or two to three times the annual production of 2004.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crocodile

секулярным государством

---

знакомое слово, но не помню, что оно значит и не могу найти определение в Интернете.

Quote:

---

Ну, соберу в космосе что уж там останется от вас."

---

Не понимаю, о чем это?
Ты намекаешь на первый, я так понимаю (и, видно, сильные козыри у тебя рукавах). Если не брать то что я не понял, ничего плохого я не вижу во втором пути: прогресс - плохо? Жизнь - череда перемен. Дудка или нет во многом зависит от отношения. Но в общем-то я не спорю просто как противник насилия и уж тем более войн. А так понял твою точку зрения (более менее) и согласен, что скорее всего Иран выберет войну. :sad2: Здесь, конечно, кучу всякого можно наговорить (как по любой глобальной теме), но скажу самое главное. Все страны нашей планеты должны стать одной страной, одним целым (известно же: вместе мы сила), чтобы не было никаких разногласий (ресурсы, кажется, бывают основным), чтобы контроль всего был эффективней и много других преимуществ. Помню, видел фильм годов 90 про андроида, который пришел из будущего. Так он сказал в будущем моя идея почти воплотилась. Он сказал, только люди начали вот так объединяться, только у них стало что-то налаживаться, как пришла какая-то беда (инопланетяне, что ли). (<хвастливо> Кстати, моя идея появилась раньше, чем я увидел этот фильм). Я к тому, что идея эта у людей есть и ей уже сколько лет, но кто-то воплощает ее? Не похоже (хоть я за политикой не сильно-то слежу). Но все равно я уверен, что ее воплотят.

Quote:

---

Только скажи - кому удаётся сохранить небольшой прирост популяции (1-2 ребёнка в семье), а кого этот вопрос не трогает (7-12 детей в семье)? Соответственно, и подход к проблеме "жертв среди мирного населения" сильно разница.

---

Опять я что-то торможу. Тут, кажется немножко о другом. Ты про то, что в России да и почти всех передовых странах прирост населения минусовой или почти минусовой, а в неразвитых наоборот?

Quote:

---

сильно разница

---

мне кажется или это по-не-русски? (сильно разнится. Сам себе не верю, что исправляю ЭТО РУССКОМУ!)

Quote:

---

Соответственно, и подход к проблеме "жертв среди мирного населения" сильно разница.

---

Ей-богу не пойму о чем это. :sorry:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kib

знакомое слово, но не помню, что оно значит и не могу найти определение в Интернете. Не понимаю, о чем это?

---

Ну, в смысле отделения религии от государства. По форме и по сути.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kib

Все страны нашей планеты должны стать одной страной, одним целым (известно же: вместе мы сила), чтобы не было никаких разногласий (ресурсы, кажется, бывают основным), чтобы контроль всего был эффективней и много других преимуществ. [...] Но все равно я уверен, что ее воплотят.

---

Типа ты за глобализацию? Стираем национальные границы?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kib

Ты про то, что в России да и почти всех передовых странах прирост населения минусовой или почти минусовой, а в неразвитых наоборот?

---

Ну, да. Эта история связана с понятием "золотого миллиарда", типа развитые страны потребляют ресурсов и энергии намного больше, чем неразвитые страны и поэтому, во имя справедливости, эти ресурсы и энергию надо "более справедливо разделить" и вообще всё человечество должно меньше потреблять ибо ресурсы ограничены. На что я всегда отвечаю, что как только неразвитые страны смогут держать прирост своего населения под контролем, тогда и поговорим. А то, руководствуясь тем, что ресурсов мало, с одной стороны они хотят себе большую долю (ибо их больше по количеству), а с другой они не хотят ограничивать свой прирост (увеличивая общее потребление). Моя позиция - вместо того, чтобы делить и сокращать потребление, нужно искать новые пути к добыче большего количества ресурсов. А именно - в космосе. Их там навалом.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kib

мне кажется или это по-не-русски? (сильно разнится. Сам себе не верю, что исправляю ЭТО РУССКОМУ!)

---

Конечно, должно было быть "разнится". Моя мало-мало сделай опечатка, спасибо за твоя внимательно следить. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kib

Ей-богу не пойму о чем это. :sorry:

---

Да всё о том же, о возможной войне на истощение. Скажу очень цинично: если в случае военных действий погибло 1000 иранцев и 100 американцев, для США это бОльшая потеря (материально, морально и политически), чем для Ирана. А вот в случае, если Иран окажется со своей нефтью не у дел, для Ирана это будет полная катастрофа (материальная, моральная и политическая). Получается, что как бы не было миролюбиво руководство Ирана, оно, по сути, может быть прижато к стенке и не иметь выбора. (Это, конечно, при сохранении современного политического курса. Если же, выражаясь грубым языком российской журналистики, "Иран ляжет под США", тогда никакая война уже будет не нужна).

PS. Чего это мы всё по-русски, да по-русски. Инглиш же тренировать надо! :)

Quote:

---

PS. Чего это мы всё по-русски, да по-русски. Инглиш же тренировать надо!

---

Ну тебе-то, наверно, не надо. Ты-то живешь в Торонтовке, если это не шутка. А про себя я решил, что мне перевод будет стоить кучи усилий. Но послушаю совета страшно доброго кроколида (тот крокодил-кукла - это нечто), помаюсь с переводом.

Quote:

---

Типа ты за глобализацию? Стираем национальные границы?

---

Yeah, seems to be I am for globalization. I knew quite a lot about the thing some time ago. All the pluses minuses and other stuff. But now I don't remember a thing. Only generalities.

Quote:

---

Стираем национальные границы?

---

A trump card, isnt it? So you don't agree with me. Globalization is evil. What can you oppose to those advantages I said ealier of? (Maybe they are not even advantages in your opinion?) Erasing national borders? It's a good thing in my view. The more things you contact with, the more you learn. The more you learn, the more possibilities for activity you have. The more possibilities you have, the more you try and achieve and the better you are. The better you are, the more perfect you can make the world. And finally, you WILL improve the world, because it's in your nature. (There is even a great physical law about that что-то там энергия стремится к своему полному воплощению). You means here humanity of course.

Well, in my opinion, globalization is inevitable under some common economic ground (like capitalism). It is neither evil nor good. I mean, it's good for some and evil for the others, as usual. I believe any restrictions on the free trade are harmful to all in the long range. I personally welcome globalization, however I would prefer to shape it a bit differently than the way it's done now. For example, I would prefer to see more "international culture" (Esperanto and the related culture) and less one specific culture (US pop culture that is) destroying other national cultures. However, there are plenty of other people (on this forum as well) who would strongly oppose globalization.

I do agree with what you said (at least with what I understand) But we are talking on different levels. I on very or most global, you on more specific (because you see I'm no good at that - I know little facts or just have few data). I think bad aspects of globalization are temporary or provisional. They're casued by the natural process of adaptation. It's like disinfection with stamping out. Very painful, but you kills all the microbes.

Quote:

---

I would prefer to see more "international culture" (Esperanto and the related culture) and less one specific culture (US pop culture that is) destroying other national cultures

---

That's because all the countries are like different species of animals: It's those who are stronger who survive. We're all enemies and rivals and each of us wants to get as more as possibble of all the things in the world. But we should be allies, who help each other mutually beneficially.
As to Esperanto. You would prefer Esperanto be the international language instead of Egnlish, so that no culture was offended?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kib

As to Esperanto. You would prefer Esperanto be the international language instead of Egnlish, so that no culture was offended?

---

That's right. Also, the spirit of Esperanto is more global, unifying, humanity-wise so to speak. Preference of one local culture over the others would also entail enforcing the values of one culture over the others. That could face a justified reaction which could significantly slow down the process and make it more painful.

"I got a rock."
Charlie Brown on space mining and Esperanto, 1966.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Yg34Ry1bG9...got+a+rock.jpg

Nice picture. I'm sorry, I just feel stupid this morning. Could you explain what this picture is about? (Just keep in mind, I'm not that fluent in the US culture.)

Croc, I think globalization is only possible under pressure of big economies (like the US) thus they push their own culture to the world as a product of globalization
Иными словами: "Кто девушку ужинает, тот ее и танцует"

Doomer, I see your point. I was actually thinking a bit differently in a way that every political formation tends to grow in size. Globalization caused by the free (or relatively free) trade seems to me the natural way for the market economy to span the national borders caused by the consumers desire to consume more. Alternatively, the socialism (or communism) would tend to politically expand under the desire of poor people to share the resources more equally, forming larger and larger unions. So, for the world economy to become globalized, the only condition is the recognition and protection of private property. The degree of globalization of each individual country would depend on the restrictions on free trade imposed by the government of that specific country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Nice picture. I'm sorry, I just feel stupid this morning. Could you explain what this picture is about? (Just keep in mind, I'm not that fluent in the US culture.)

---

OK.
It is a reference to It's the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown a 1966 American prime time animated television special based on the comic strip Peanuts by Charles M. Schulz.

Charlie Brown had great hopes and ambition for Halloween candy (space mining) and all he gets are rocks.
The "World Space Agency" could spend Billions of Earth Resources and fly to a rock and have nothing of value.
There is Helium3 on the Moon. Not being mined.

Esperanto is a rock too.
A Spaniard, a Cuban a Mexican and a Venezuelan walked into a bar.
They all "speak Spanish" and still couldn't communicate. A Puerto Rican told me that.
People tend to cling to their own culture as long as possible before assimilating.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by capecoddah

OK.
It is a reference to It's the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown a 1966 American prime time animated television special based on the comic strip Peanuts by Charles M. Schulz.

Charlie Brown had great hopes and ambition for Halloween candy (space mining) and all he gets are rocks.
The "World Space Agency" could spend Billions of Earth Resources and fly to a rock and have nothing of value.

---

Ok, thanks for the explanation. I agree, theoretically they could have nothing of value or have less value that they have invested into it. The only thing with 'value' is that thing tend to change over time depending on the infrastructure. Needless to explain that the value of a piece of meat is much less these days than it used to be just a hundred years ago. At the same time, say, a piece of uranium was of very little value 100 years ago and is now of very high value as it could be used (after being enriched) as a nuclear fuel. So, I think what is important here is a vision: should we fight here on Earth for the remnants of the depleting resources, or start investing into the future?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by capecoddah

There is Helium3 on the Moon. Not being mined.

---

You see, I'm not a professional applied physicist to say with authority it will never be mined or it will be mined in 10 years. I've heard He-3 might be a good thermonuclear fuel. So, at some point in time as technology develop it might be more economically viable to start mining it on the Moon and bring it back. Let's see the outcome of the ITER project. But, in my opinion, that direction is much more promising than all the so-called 'renewable sources' exploitation, which is clearly only a temporary solution to the energy demands. For example, according to http://environmentaldefence.ca/sites...port_FINAL.pdf

Quote:

---

The International Energy Agency estimates that the total amount of global investment in clean energy production will reach US$1.55 trillion by 2020 even in the absence of international action to tackle global warming, and, with action, the investment rises to US$2.2 trillion.

---

Now, according to ITER - the way to new energy , "Based on the European evaluation, we can estimate the cost of ITER construction for the seven Members at approximately EUR 13 billion, if all the manufacturing was done in Europe."

Hmm.. EUR 13 billion versus US$2.2 trillion.. Shouldn't that be the other way around?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by capecoddah

People tend to cling to their own culture as long as possible before assimilating.

---

I agree with that. So, here's the alternatives:

1. If the business of country X needs to deal with the business of country Y, let's make Xs learn Y's language and Ys learn X's language.

2. If the business of country Z needs to deal with the business of any other country, let the other countries learn Z's language, and Zs will not learn any other language.

3. Adopt one 'international-culture language' and let all countries deal in that among themselves while keeping their own languages internally.

In fact, there are lots of international standards already in all kinds of industries, so why not in the language? Using English as international language gives an unfair advantage to the native English speakers and English culture in general. What's so special in English culture to let its language dominate?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crocodile

I agree with that. So, here's the alternatives:

1. If the business of country X needs to deal with the business of country Y, let's make Xs learn Y's language and Ys learn X's language.

---

Very strange proposition.
So if you want to buy M from K store, should you pay money to the K store and the store would pay you money back for the same M?
In other words if X wants to do business with Y - they should spent resources on making that happen, not the other way around

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doomer

Very strange proposition.
So if you want to buy M from K store, should you pay money to the K store and the store would pay you money back for the same M?
In other words if X wants to do business with Y - they should spent resources on making that happen, not the other way around

---

For example, if some of the French oil explorers want to hire a couple of Kaluli guides to lurk in Papua New Guinea forest, that means French geologists would either have Kaluli learn to speak French or themselves learn to speak one of the Bosavi dialects. And if Kaluli want to sell their crafted wooden figures of birds in France, the same question could be asked again - who would learn whose language. Needless to say, if the commercial ties are strong, both French and Kaluli would learn each other language. So, I think, option 1 is not strange, actually the most natural, but definitely not the most effective for Kaluli if they ever decide to also sell their handicraft in England, Spain, Portugal, Russia, South Arabia, and so on. :)

Incorrect example
Guides are by definition should be able to guide. If language is required to be a guide then the guide should learn it. i.e. French side should find a guide who speaks all the necessary languages and that's what actually happens in the real world. French side should find resources to make the communication happen, as I was suggesting I don't see why Papua New Guinea should pay French side for a guide as you were suggesting :)
Selling the goods is also incorrect example, because goods are targeting local population thus should be useful and convenient for locals

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doomer

Guides are by definition should be able to guide. If language is required to be a guide then the guide should learn it. i.e. French side should find a guide who speaks all the necessary languages and that's what actually happens in the real world. French side should find resources to make the communication happen, as I was suggesting I don't see why Papua New Guinea should pay French side for a guide as you were suggesting :)

---

Ok, so who in the real world would learn whose language? Could French hire Kaluli interpreter who speaks French, or could French hire a French interpreter who speaks Bosavi? All I'm saying, in the real world, both things happen depending on the availability.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doomer

Selling the goods is also incorrect example, because goods are targeting local population thus should be useful and convenient for locals

---

What's targeting the local population is the non-speaking handicraft, but there's the whole marketing requiring lots of speaking and knowing the culture of the target audience. Again, it could do either way, a Kaluli firm could hire a Kaluli who's fluent in French to act abroad, or alternatively, the Kaluli firm could hire a French agent who's fluent in Bosavi. That depends on the availability of the resources. All, I'm saying, the economic ties would inevitably cause mutual language and culture studies. The tighter the ties, the more language studies. If all of a sudden it becomes fashionable for the French tourists to come and visit Papuan Plateau, whoever of Kaluli speaks better French, would get more money as they could provide more hospitable environment. And if French tourists would know Bosavi language better, they would find more exciting experiences. And so on.

I'm not sure what makes you so irritated about point 1, isn't that the natural process that had happen everywhere?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crocodile

I'm not sure what makes you so irritated about point 1, isn't that the natural process that had happen everywhere?

---

It suggests that both sides should spend resources on learning the language of the opposite side. I found this economically unnecessary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doomer

It suggests that both sides should spend resources on learning the language of the opposite side. I found this economically unnecessary.

---

I agree. That's why I think options 2 and 3 (which I personally endorse) are equally good from the economic perspective. However, moving forward from point 1 requires some coordination of efforts, won't you agree? I mean, in my example, if both French and Kaluli would speak, say, Portuguese, it would enormously speed up the business integration, but what would make them both learn Portuguese?

Used to be French.

Ships, airlines, UN.

Parlez vouz?

Croc, are you heading to Chelybinsk?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by capecoddah

Croc, are you heading to Chelybinsk?

---

Nah, the locals have gathered all the precious remnants. Nothing left for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crocodile

What's so special in English culture to let its language dominate?

---

American linguistic/cultural imperialism is simply our revenge on the goddamned treacherous French for forcing their godless metric system and oral sex on the entire world!!!

Deepest apologies to Russians, Chinese, Mexicans, and others who have no choice but to learn the complicated and illogical English language instead of simple, rational Esperanto. You were only innocent "collateral damage" from our noble campaign against the stinking heathen Frogs...

Btw, there is an opinion that so-called meteor shower was an unsuccesfull attempt of Chelyabinsk zink plant to extract raw materials directly from space.

http://img855.imageshack.us/img855/7...orite08130.jpg

http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/1...eor17n6web.jpg

From an Associated Press article:
"
The panic and confusion that followed Friday's meteorite crash quickly gave way to typical Russian black humor and entrepreneurial instincts.
Several people smashed in the windows of their houses in the hopes of receiving compensation, the RIA Novosti news agency reported.
Others quickly took to the Internet and put what they said were meteorite fragments up for sale.
One of the most popular jokes was that the meteorite was supposed to fall on Dec. 21 last year - when many believed the Mayan calendar predicted the end of the world - but was delivered late by Russia's notoriously inefficient postal service.
The dramatic event prompted an array of reactions from prominent Russians.
Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev, speaking at an economic forum in the Siberian city of Krasnoyarsk, said the meteor could be a symbol for the forum, showing that "not only the economy is vulnerable, but the whole planet."
Vladimir Zhirinovsky, a nationalist leader noted for his vehement statements, blamed the Americans.
"It's not meteors falling. It's the test of a new weapon by the Americans," the RIA Novosti news agency quoted him as saying."


And people wonder why I want to visit Russia!

A slightly related note:
Missing "Meteor (Metop)" in Ryazan District.

http://i38.servimg.com/u/f38/15/28/70/21/lost_m10.jpg

Reward is a bottle of vodka and a pack of cigarettes. I'll add a bottle of Kentucky Bourbon.
Missing since August.
I got to name the kitty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Basil77

Btw, there is an opinion that so-called meteor shower was an unsuccesfull attempt of Chelyabinsk zink plant to extract raw materials directly from space.

---

Sad, but true. Apparently, it's a bit more complex than installing a very large magnet and directing it upwards.