[ExI] pentagon wants orbiting solar power stations
hkhenson at rogers.com
Wed Oct 17 02:10:17 UTC 2007
At 06:08 PM 10/16/2007, David Lubkin wrote:
> I think the 1970's estimates were around $150 million to
>bring a decent nickel-iron asteroid back, which translates to about
>$500 million today. Even off by a factor of ten, it can be funded by
You might be off by a factor of ten or even more. It depends
entirely on how you do it.
>I am surprised that none of the tech rich who are putting
>money in space are talking about asteroids. Maybe (he hoped) they're
>working on it, but quietly.
>I do feel very strongly that getting off this planet *asap* is vital,
>for all manner of reasons, without regard to how easy it would be
>given other technologies (MNT) that we expect but haven't happened yet.
The consequences of not getting off the planet in a really big way
are dire. For the energy structure we can see on the downside of
peak oil, billions will die because oil is what keeps them alive.
Oil is what grows and transports food to places with oil but not much
water. The impressive number (to me) is that a ton of wheat took
1000 tons of water to grow.
MNT isn't likely to come along before the oil runs out.
More information about the extropy-chat