Space factories -the third industrial revolution

[Rune175]

Inspired by Harry Stine's book "The Third Industrial Revolution" I'm posting this new thread.

 

For those of you who haven't read it, it's about moving the production of alot of things to space instead of earth, like metals, medicine and alot more, and the benefits the human race would gain if that were to happen.

 

An example: We, as a civilization, decide to move all the production of metals, steels etc. into space. Instead of transporting raw materials from earth to the space, which would be very costly, to manufacture we use the planetoid belts and asteroids for raw materials, since they consist of eg. Iron, alluminium etc.

The good thing about this is less pollution on earth, we don't use all the raw materials on earth and don't empty our planet.

The downside of this is the costs of establishing such a corporation from scratch.

 

My question is: Why has this initiative not been done yet? The technology was there already in the 70s, roughly said, so that's not the problem. Also a great advantage is all the products we could manufacture in space, because of the zero g effect; New and pure metals, new medicine without impurities, crystals, new alloys down to only few molecules in thickness - and the list goes on, not to mention all the new discoveries we could find, and new products to manufacture, new possibilities within our range.

 

Why haven't this been done yet? I know that this is a very ambitious and colourfull scenario, but none the less a realistic one.

 

Looking forward to your answers.

[SkepticLance]

It is all very well saying we had the technology in the 1970's. We will have to transport thousands of tonnes of material into orbit simply to get started, and the cost of doing so is literally astronomic.

 

I think there is a real possibility there, but it will have to wait till we have a cheap means of getting stuff up there. The obvious way is the postulated space elevator, if and when it is created. After that, the sky is the limit.

[CaptainPanic]

Another issue is that the technologies to manufacture raw materials (for example steel mills) run on fossil fuels. These are kinda hard to come by in space.

 

There may be plenty of iron, but our traditional way of processing that is to heat it up in a big fire (I do simplify things here for the sake of the discussion). Even if the metal is not an ore, but in metallic form, it still needs to be melted before it can be processed. We could concentrate the sun using mirrors, but there are some problems with transparent reactors that need to be heated to over 1000 degrees Celcius. It's possible, but expensive.

 

And if iron is an ore, we burn off the oxygen using cokes (carbon). We then make a lot of CO2... and steel. The carbon is not available in space. And neither is the oxygen to make the fires. We could perhaps bring our own fuel and oxygen, and recycle it with solar power (hydrogen and oxygen for combustion, then with solar powered electrolysis it is recycled)... Recycling the carbon needed to remove the oxygen from the ore is also possible: we need massive amounts of greenhouses in space: plants could do the job. (btw, there are also chemical ways to do it).

 

And finally, I think that the processes will need to be re-invented. The weightless environment will mean that about every unit in the factory needs to be re-designed.

 

I think that the first step should be to get some kind of power generator up there... Something like a solar-panel-factory. This should be the start of a factory to build more factories.

[Rune175]

Yes I thought about the space elevator as a possible way of transporting materials from earth to space and back to earth. I read about somewhere that it was expected to be build from 2015 - is that true?

 

CaptainPanic: Yes it probably was a little too over ambitious a suggestion. I still believe it will be very exiting to see what the ISS discovers with their new space lab. Not to mention all the possible new products, which can be manufactured in space.

 

Some future vision I agree.

[CaptainPanic]

Well... I started writing about the steel industry's technology which we cannot apply in space (as I said: lack of fossil fuels).

 

But I then proceeded to brainstorm a bit about possible solutions... and it's not completely impossible to for example get metal from ores with current technology. We just need to apply different existing techniques to tackle the new space-problems. Although I sounded pessimistic, I am a believer

 

I just doubt whether it is worth the investment, when we look at cost vs. the benefits, and compare it to other investments (such as sustainable energy systems)...

[D H]

Yes I thought about the space elevator as a possible way of transporting materials from earth to space and back to earth. I read about somewhere that it was expected to be build from 2015 - is that true?

Not a chance. The space elevator remains a pipe dream at this time. Putting a construction timetag on something that has barely passed from pure to applied research is downright silly. Analogy: Fusion power.

 

There is plenty of research being done on space elevators, but it is research, not development. Construction is an engineering problem. The research has to be pretty much complete before construction can start. We don't even know what to build it from, alghough carbon nanotubes are a good bet. They are nearly strong enough and we can make them -- in small quantities. Making them in large quantities (huge quantities for the space elevator) is another big problem that is still in the research phase. We don't know how to put the components together; early research phase here. We don't know how to operate an elevator on such a cable. We don't know how to bootstrap the whole process; gettting the first strand going is one of the tougher problems. We don't know about stability and vibrational modes. We don't know the environmental impacts. Those are the things we know we don't know. There are a lot of hidden unknowns, things we don't even know that we don't know. Bottom line: 2015 is only seven years away. Right now, it's still in the hands of scientists. Building can commence when the problem shifts from science to engineering.

[SkepticLance]

The team working on the space elevator actually stated 2020 as the date for the first one. Like DH I think that is a pipe dream, and the analogy with fusion power is probably apt. So far, the research team have managed to make a suitable cable one mile long, and hoisted it under a balloon. This is a long way from a space elevator.

 

When I talk about this technology, I treat it similarly to fusion - saying if and when. The time could be anything from 20 to 100 years, but I think it will eventually happen. The theory is good, and we know that carbon nanotubes have the potential. Converting theory to practise will take time, though.

 

Another problem is moving cargo up and down the elevator fast enough. The eventual elevator ribbon will need to be about 78,000 kms long. If we are dealing with a slow train, then the people and cargoes going up and down will be old before arrival.

 

In addition, they have to pass through the Van Allen radiation belts. Currently, the space shuttle goes through quickly enough for that not to be a problem. However, a slow train would expose people to so much radiation that it would kill them.

 

If we could develop magnetic levitation train technologies good enough to whisk the people and cargoes at very high speed, then OK.

[swansont]

Also a great advantage is all the products we could manufacture in space, because of the zero g effect; New and pure metals, new medicine without impurities, crystals, new alloys down to only few molecules in thickness - and the list goes on, not to mention all the new discoveries we could find, and new products to manufacture, new possibilities within our range.

 

Some of these have been tested on the shuttle and space station, and even earlier, on space lab and Mir. AFAIK the advantages have been few and far between, and don't justify the expense. Microgravity advantages appear to be largely a myth.

 

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=10831

 

"There had been speculation that certain manufacturing processes that are difficult or impossible on Earth might be easier in microgravity. For most manufacturing processes, however, gravity is simply not an important variable. Gravitational forces are generally far too weak compared to interatomic forces to have much effect."

[Rune175]

Thanks SwansonT great article, was really surprised by some of the facts:

 

"The microgravity environment has been found to be far more deleterious to human health than anyone had suspected. Indeed, in the first heady early days of the space age there was speculation that someday heart patients might be sent into orbit to rest their hearts, which would not have to pump blood against the force of gravity. On the contrary we find that not only is the heart severely stressed in zero gravity, osteoporosis, muscle atrophy, immune suppression, sleep disorders, diarrhea and bouts of depression and anxiety are endemic to the space environment."

 

Would have thought the opposite..

[D H]

In addition, they have to pass through the Van Allen radiation belts.

I agree, radiation exposure is yet another unsolved problem with the space elevator concept.

 

Currently, the space shuttle goes through quickly enough for that not to be a problem. However, a slow train would expose people to so much radiation that it would kill them.

Minor quibble with your post, Lance. The last humans to pass through the Van Allen belts were the Apollo astronauts. The Shuttle and the ISS orbit at about 300 km, well within even the inner belt.

[Rune175]

Tried to google interatomic forces, but couldn't find anything good, can you explain what that is, I would be very thankfull!

 

Do you guys believe that it would be easier to establish a moonbase instead?

[swansont]

Tried to google interatomic forces, but couldn't find anything good, can you explain what that is, I would be very thankfull!

 

Chemical bonds, basically, and similar effects like adhesion. Gravity is an incredibly weak effect compared to the other forces in nature; we notice it because it can't be screened, and so the long-range nature of it can be detected.

[abateNth]

Please, just don't pull the pharmacological trick I was exposed to in the early-to-mid 1990's range. Where, they intended to complete a process of pill production in a zero gravity environment. As, this would lead to tighter protocols for liscensing, as well as patents.

This was a serious ambition, because the molecules that were to be inert and aid in delivery of the medicine would have "signatures" that would be impossible to duplicate here on earth.

However, where it would possibly be applicable, for say untreatable infection with something not readily available. I think the cost per pill came out to around $800,000US dollars. And, multiples of dosage are almost always required.

Thought it worth mentioning, since money hogs are glutenous. And, they will apply for rights/patents to technologies that could be used in outer space; and in fact, already have...

[CaptainPanic]

Right now we are in space to discover and learn, and not to earn money. The knowledge itself is priceless. The products made in space are worth only a fraction of the costs of every mission, and that will remain the same for decades to come.

[abateNth]

Right now we are in space to discover and learn, and not to earn money. The knowledge itself is priceless. The products made in space are worth only a fraction of the costs of every mission, and that will remain the same for decades to come.

 

The only product I'm familiar with that has been sold are samples.

 

Typically ranging $20,000/gram. Making them the most precious.

 

Currently their are no products produced on the market.

Sale of the information gleened is of high, interest, however. And, data in pure form with re-applicable findings is often sold per kb or Mb depending on size of the incoming stream.

Satellite audio is of the highest order right now, as the sreams and squelches induced on the antenna-based-speaker array often indicated no intelligence present. Only, their of malfunction...

Order received, will cost you about 5,000 /s / 8-bit stream, or thereabouts. As, it is highly classified material. But, for the privelaged, the demand exceeded the want of knowledge and understanding.

[SkepticLance]

To POM

 

Your futuristic space plane sounds good. Sadly, there is no sign it will appear, in the near future or far future. On the other hand, the space elevator is already being researched by a dedicated team. So far, they have built one a mile long and hung it under a balloon.

 

OK, this is a long way from the 78,000 km long ribbon that will be needed - but it is a start, and the technology is possible in theory. This means that it is likely to appear in due course.

 

The fact that orbit is achieved using just electricity has to be seen as a major advantage. No reaction mass required!

[SkepticLance]

To POM

Sadly, your optimism is probably misplaced. The cost of anything made in space or on the moon and delivered back, even to Earth orbit, is orders of magnitude greater than the same material made here on Earth. Even if crude oil reached US$1000 per barrel, that would still be true.

 

In fact, it is far more likely that any economic downturn will actually have the opposite to your desired effect. Less money means more excuses to cut NASA's budget.

 

There is, in fact, no overall shortage of raw materials of most types here on Earth. Just an increase in extraction cost. For example, there is 50 million tonnes of Uranium 235 dissolved in the ocean, which can be extracted using the technique developed by the Japanese Atomic Energy Research Institute (JAERI), at a cost about 5 times that of mined U235.

 

The same applies to all essential raw materials. We can get all the materials we will need - just at a higher cost, which is still way, way cheaper than going into space.

[SkepticLance]

To POM

 

You have my full sympathy. I have always loved the idea of humans moving into space. Colonies on the moon and Mars. Cities in space. Mining of the asteroids. I think it will happen. Just not in our lifetimes, sadly.

[Mr Skeptic]

Space still has a few things that earth doesn't. There's lots more sunshine there, so it would be the best place for solar power on a scale that would meet all our energy needs (including synthesis of oils) many times over. Some materials, like irridium, are rare on earth, but common in meteors. A few manufacturing processes would benefit from zero gravity. Space manufacturing and habitation would be a path to expanding our population beyond the limits of our planet, or for space exploration.

 

However, the weight of all the equipment required for a self-sustaining system, as well as getting to and from materials sources (meteors and such), probably make this too expensive at the moment. Miniaturization or nanotechnology may be the key.

[Reaper]

To POM

Sadly, your optimism is probably misplaced. The cost of anything made in space or on the moon and delivered back, even to Earth orbit, is orders of magnitude greater than the same material made here on Earth. Even if crude oil reached US$1000 per barrel, that would still be true.

 

Well, only if the cost of going into, out of, and doing anything in space stays more or less the same price as it is now.

 

I'm pretty certain that one day we will have the ability to build factories up there, but sadly they remain at minimum several decades away. Possibly centuries.

 

 

 

What will most likely happen is that humans will use space travel to migrate out of Earth all together. As for general mining, it would be far cheaper to just simply ship the raw material back to Earth; anything manufactured on any of the colonies will stay there.

[Widdekind]

Another issue is that the technologies to manufacture raw materials (for example steel mills) run on fossil fuels. These are kinda hard to come by in space.

 

There may be plenty of iron, but our traditional way of processing that is to heat it up in a big fire (I do simplify things here for the sake of the discussion).

fission reactors "melt down", because they can generate sufficient heat, to melt metals. Perhaps fission reactors could be run "hot", to melt metal space-ores, w/o need for "fuel + oxidizer" ?

[CaptainPanic]

fission reactors "melt down", because they can generate sufficient heat, to melt metals. Perhaps fission reactors could be run "hot", to melt metal space-ores, w/o need for "fuel + oxidizer" ?

But then you get radioactive molten ore, which is like radioactive molten rock. You still do not get a not metal.

[Widdekind]

But then you get radioactive molten ore, which is like radioactive molten rock. You still do not get a not metal.

fission could heat a crucible, in which space-ores could be deposited, and melted. i did not mean to suggest, "packing" space-ores around fissionable materials, and allowing the lot to "melt down" into a single radioactive magma. fission energy, not chemical energy, could heat & melt space-ores. Presumably, such "nuclear crucibles" would require artificial gravity, e.g. "spinning ring-shaped space factories", in order to separate slag & metal. if helpful, artificial gravity could exceed 1G.

[Moontanman]

Inspired by Harry Stine's book "The Third Industrial Revolution" I'm posting this new thread.

 

 

For those of you who haven't read it, it's about moving the production of alot of things to space instead of earth, like metals, medicine and alot more, and the benefits the human race would gain if that were to happen.

 

 

An example: We, as a civilization, decide to move all the production of metals, steels etc. into space. Instead of transporting raw materials from earth to the space, which would be very costly, to manufacture we use the planetoid belts and asteroids for raw materials, since they consist of eg. Iron, alluminium etc.

 

The good thing about this is less pollution on earth, we don't use all the raw materials on earth and don't empty our planet.

 

The downside of this is the costs of establishing such a corporation from scratch.

 

 

My question is: Why has this initiative not been done yet? The technology was there already in the 70s, roughly said, so that's not the problem. Also a great advantage is all the products we could manufacture in space, because of the zero g effect; New and pure metals, new medicine without impurities, crystals, new alloys down to only few molecules in thickness - and the list goes on, not to mention all the new discoveries we could find, and new products to manufacture, new possibilities within our range.

 

 

Why haven't this been done yet? I know that this is a very ambitious and colourfull scenario, but none the less a realistic one.

 

 

Looking forward to your answers.

 

I think the main reason why it hasn't happened is because we are unwilling to use nuclear power to do the deed....

[CaptainPanic]

fission could heat a crucible, in which space-ores could be deposited, and melted. i did not mean to suggest, "packing" space-ores around fissionable materials, and allowing the lot to "melt down" into a single radioactive magma. fission energy, not chemical energy, could heat & melt space-ores. Presumably, such "nuclear crucibles" would require artificial gravity, e.g. "spinning ring-shaped space factories", in order to separate slag & metal. if helpful, artificial gravity could exceed 1G.

Where does the oxygen go? Ore is an oxidized metal (iron ore = iron + oxygen). You can only turn it into iron/steel when you get rid of the oxygen. As far as I know, you need cokes or charcoal (essentially carbon) for that.

 

In short: the cokes in a blast furnace are added for 2 reasons: heat, and to react with the oxygen (to form CO2). Only heat is not enough.