Heat management, recycling, $, and space ores

> I know I sent a letter to O'Neill asking him if some of the numbers
> in the NRC study weren't quite simply wrong. He agreed, referring
> to the study as "nature faking".

Turns a bit green. Envy and all. Got a letter from O'Neill. Cool.

> I would agree that bringing stuff down to Earth takes somewhat less
> energy than sending things up, given that one can use the
> atmosphere for braking.
> But it still takes lots of energy. I can almost see a case for the

Sure it takes energy. So does getting the stuff any other way. So
at what point does doing the moon/asteroid mining way look better?

> platinum group metals. And even here, you'd have to be careful
> about flooding the market.

Tarzan understood this. What?

> But for anything else, I think it would be hard to make a profit.
>
> I say, use space ores in space.

Absolutely use them in space! On Earth also? I don't know.

> I remember a proposal to form space metals into a giant lifting
> body. Ocean landing was recommended, as the lifting body would
> actually float, and could be towed. That's because it was foam
> steel: something which was suggested as an space export before
> honeycomb composites made it seem less attractive.

But if what you want is the steel/titanium/whatever, do you care if
it's foamed or not?

>> That could be advantageous for nations poor in mineral resources,
>> once space travel is made common. Of course I'm no space nor
>> mining specialist and my idea of "mining meteor-delivery" may be
>> very nave in some point.
>
> I'd say the chief problem would be explaining to folks who've
> seen "Deep Impact" and "Armageddon" what you were going to do and
> why they shouldn't worry about it.

It's not the size of Texas. It's not even the size of Texas Stadium.