Will asteroid mining make gold/silver worthless?

>>60585260 (OP)
No, not at all
Gold and silver derive their value from scarcity + effort required to produce it
Think of the costs that go into producing it:
>machinery
>land
>workers wages
It will take a large capital investment to mine asteroids; that will be the cost to produce it
If it is not profitable to mine asteroids then it will not be undertaken as a business venture
In other words, if the price of gold / silver relative to the price of capital expenditure to produce that gold / silver is not a gain, then asteroid mining will never be commercially viable
If it was commercially viable, more profitable to mine in space than it was to mine on Earth, then this would mean that gold / silver had become so scarce or inaccessible and inefficiently mined on Earth, where the scarcity of the gold / silver drove the price up so much that it was profitable to space mine
In addition, I would find it hard to believe that if we were in the stage of commercial space mining that the demand or total usage for gold / silver would be less, as the demand for it used in technology purposes will only increase, let alone its use in currency hedging, systemic risk, jewelry
What I'm trying to say is if humanity is so advanced to be profitably space mining, this would mean a society where technology was so advanced and everywhere that these metals would be being used much, much more (all computers / chips use gold, for example)

>>60585260 (OP)
yeah but that's like at least 250 years away so who cares? Bitcoin and crypto is in risk of being made worthless in the next 5 years thanks to quantum computers.

>>60585335
quantum proof encryption already exists. crypto can adapt. but what about asteroid mining proof metals?
asteroid mining can easily happen within 25 years, so pms are garbage as retirements savings

>>60585260 (OP)
Not on a investable timeline.

Crypto supply is limited due to the processing limitation of this universe / simulation we exist in.

Any other commodity metal is not as limited in supply. New asteroid objects could easily be instantiated in the sim with minimal memory requirement impact.

Therefore, crypto is worth more than gold.

>>60585260 (OP)
Nigger u need thrusters for that.

>>60585369
there is a 0% chance that asteroid mining will be commercially viable within 25 years
it costs $1,800-$2,600 to produce an oz of gold
think about oil rigs, where depending on the price of oil the rig operators will shut it down
the cost to produce an oz will only go up as the supply of easily accessible gold goes down
estimates for reusable rockets cost savings are around 65%, cost per flight $30 million
let's say that this technology advances as well, where it becomes cheaper in 25 year inflation adjusted dollars to launch
how many rockets do you need to launch to operate asteroid mining?
right now, they carry 8,300kg to geostationary orbit - for perspective (not that you would use this specific machine in space) a large bulldozer weighs 45,000-113,000kg
think of all the machinery that would need to be launched to space to conduct space mining, even with the technological advances in reusable rockets we will see over 25 years - you're talking about investing possibly a trillion dollars into making commercial space mining viable within 25 years
it's not going to happen - and if it was commercially viable, where the cost to produce gold / silver in space was more profitable than to produce it on Earth, this would mean the price of gold / silver was so extremely high that it would be the retirement investors benefit

>>60585369
>quantum proof encryption already exists. crypto can adapt.
I don't know about that, let's get the actual quantum computers first before we start saying something is "quantum proof".

>>60585260 (OP)
Herbs for the shill thread. How many asteroids are currently being mined? What do you imagine the price of silver would have to be in order for asteroid mining to be profitable?

Unironically the price of gold would go up if asteroid mining yielded precious metals meanwhile btc code would be (((democratically))) altered on a whim. Imagine trusting scarcity to a code that can easily be changed by pic related

>>60585579
Dats wy u eth.

>>60585393
>crypto is worth more than gold
No, you're just a retard.

>>60585260 (OP)
Virtual reality will make gold and silver worthless

>>60585664
>Virtual reality
That's powered by computers, that require gold and silver to manufacture...
Holy shit are you dumb

HHHHHHHAHAHAHA
yeah sure goy
dont get star rocks
they worthless
leave em for the others

>>60585664
Kek this guy

The current probe heading to 16 Psyche needs 6 years just to get there. There will be a silver shortage long before it is realistic to mine the asteroid.

>>60585579
not knowing how the rules of bitcoin are validated should be a mental illness at some point, maybe it's just massive lack of intelligence to understand simple concepts

>>60585369
>asteroid mining can easily happen within 25 years
We won't even have flying cars in 25 years.

>brooo the ruIes you cant just alter the crypto scarcity because of the rules
Kek the btc code will be altered to have more than 21 million, in our lifetimes and jews will seethe.

>>60585260 (OP)
Yes.
The elemental composition of our planet is very different from other planets or asteroids. What we see as a scarce resource is in some cases plentiful outside earth.
There are asteroids in our solar system containing more gold than there is gold on earth.

>>60585260 (OP)
I wouldn't worry about it
NASA has too many diversity hiring requirements and Elon Musk wants to replace all his staff with H1Bs
We aint getting to the asteroid belt

>>60585668
how much is your computer worth in-game?

zero. it doesn't exist in the game.

>>60585750
>There are asteroids in our solar system containing more gold than there is gold on earth.
false

most of the gold on earth is near the core where we can't reach it.

there are asteroids that SOME SCIENTISTS think are cores from exploded planets. These cores might have a slightly higher concentration of gold than the surface of the earth.

most scientists now believe this is false. Those asteroids are not planetary cores, and don't contain much gold.

Whats your high score

>>60585260 (OP)
A total of 382 kg of rocks and dust were brought back from the six Apollo mission that successfully landed on the moon and came back. Each Saturn V rocket including 13 that never landed on the moon cost as much as an aircraft carrier. In order to make asteroid mining economically viable gold would have to be valued at about 3 billion dollars per milligram.

No because it'll be so expensive to mine and transport the shit back it'll make no difference

>>60585324
/thread

I won't let your post go to waste Anon.

>>60585260 (OP)
Stupid jeet code thinks what I am trying to post is spam

>>60585260 (OP)
monetary medals is a failed experiment.

>>60585324
>>60585464
>>60585522
>>60585843


why bother explaining basic thermodynamics to these fucktards. they legit think we'll have free energy and therfore free resources in the future. let biz be an echo chamber.

it's always some legit fuckat 1pbtid that starts one of these threads.

>>60585906

>>60585464
retarded midwit take

there is a much greater than 0% chance, the technology is already being worked on independently and simultaneous of eachother by one company (Tesla/SpaceX/The Boring Company)

literally why would anyone want to go to mars. where is the money in that? oh wait there is none, yet this is spaceX's magnum opus. elon's daddy owned an emerald mine, dont u think elon wants to upstage his daddy and be the worlds gatekeeper for precious metals?

>>60586063
even if you were to triple the payload while halving the cost it would not be cost efficient to mine asteroids rather than mine gold /silver on Earth in 25 years time
and again, it's all about if it's economically viable
if it isn't economically viable, there is no reason to mine asteroids
if it is economically viable, then the price of gold / silver are very high
there is also the time factor / time value of money, where if you have to invest $100 billion in order to produce X amount of gold in the future, all of that time of space flight has a cost
even if you had a space elevator (which is impossible) built right now, you couldn't mine asteroids in a commercially viable way in 25 years worth of time
it is estimated that gold on Earth will be not be economically viable to mine by 2050 (but who knows, maybe we have mastered mining sea water for gold efficiently enough where that becomes the main source by then)
as long as it is more profitable to mine gold on Earth than it is in space, it will continue to be mined on Earth
I don't see space mining being economically viable until minimum the year 2075, much after the gold mines on Earth have run out of easily mineable supply, where the price of gold is high enough to make it viable to space mine
if you can't turn a profit in the activity, you don't do the activity in the first place; if you can turn a profit doing it, then the price would be very high / exceed the price cost of machinery, labor, etc where in real value terms is profitable
it makes zero sense to mine asteroids where your cost of production is $10,000 an oz (in reality it would be much, much higher than this) when you can mine on Earth for $1,600 an oz

>>60586309
you are going on and on about how it is not economically viable, but it quite literally is. If you can explain to me the amount of money there is in colonizing mars, and why SpaceX is building a spaceship to get to there then I might start listening to you.

it is absolutely economically viable if these asteroids are between Earth and Mars, and have high concentrations of these different metals. And investors are retarded, if they see this is a feasible plan they will absolutely react against gold.

The cost of going to space and back is very cheap once a reliable, and reusable space ship is built that is capable of holding a decent payload. I don't see why they can't jettison a payload once it is in earths atmosphere
either.

>>60585369
>asteroid mining can easily happen within 25 years
No

>>60588131
You're talking about spending tens or hundreds of billions of dollars to bring back a dump truck load of high grade gold ore from twenty million miles away
And if somehow someway you are wildly successful you will tank the price of the very thing you invested all that capital to acquire.
Stupid faggot

>>60588248
more than just gold, and what is the hundreds of billions of dollars of cost coming from? The upfront cost of building a spaceship and other equipment being used? Assuming most of the high cost items are reusable, wouldn't the cost really just be in time to obtain, fuel (i imagine is negligible), and maintenance.

I certainly would not put that in the billions, maybe it would cost a 10-50mill

>>60588248
and doesn't de beers own the diamond industry by controlling the supply? can't the supply be controlled by one company for these "precious space metals"

>>60586063
>ignores the elephant in the room regarding the little hats worn by the crypto gatekeepers

>>60588279
Yes absolutely. I was just thinking about how gold schizos already contend that the gold price is manipulated down drastically by (((futures contracts))), so if that is true then they can also manipulate it up to make asteroid mining (((economically viable))), then they can dump their bags on retards and jewmaxx. Then the scam either collapses due to hyperinflation of the gold supply or they do as you say and restrict the flow of gold from space such that they have an equilibrium of modest profits. I suppose it then just comes down to how many independent companies will be space mining and whether they collude to fix the price (they will).

>>60588131
>you are going on and on about how it is not economically viable, but it quite literally is
anon.. if it was currently economically viable, it would be done..
are you dumb?
>why SpaceX is building a spaceship to get to there
literally a pet project by Musk / due to his own personal interest; all of the money comes from launching satellites to orbit
there is no money in colonizing Mars
privately funded by people who just want to be a part of it, not because they expect to make a fortune colonizing Mars
>if these asteroids are between Earth and Mars
they aren't; Mars is 140 million miles away, asteroid belt 329 million miles - Musk projects it would take 2-4 months (it currently takes 6-9 months) and that is relying on planets being in the right place to take advantage of gravity
Now tell me anon, how will this metal be mined, transported, refined?
Will we make refineries on Mars, on the moon?
Okay, how will we have the energy required to smelt these metals? You don't have a grid, you don't have easy energy access
>we'll make massive nuclear reactors on Mars capable of mass refining metals within 25 years!
then you have to ship them back to Earth
you're talking about trillions of dollars in investment to produce gold that takes more than a year to return to Earth - there is a 0% chance that this would be more profitable than to be mining gold / silver on Earth by the year 2050
you're talking about production costs of $10,000+ an oz; if the production cost is $10,000+ then you don't do it unless the price of gold is $11,000+ an oz

>>60588272
How much has Musk paid just to get his equipment into Earth orbit? How much more is it going to take to get 100 times farther, turn around and come back with more than a kilo of dirt?
>The cost of the OSIRIS-REx mission is approximately US$800 million,[26] not including the Atlas V launch vehicle, which is about US$183.5 million
>In total, 121.6 g (4.29 oz) of asteroidal material was recovered from the sample container.

Are you so fucking stupid you think we are going to be able to build The Nostromo any time in the next 200 years? Really?

>>60588744
*100 time farther than the moon's orbit.

>>60588272
capital investment doesn't exist in a vacuum; every minute of existence that a machine goes through it depreciates - repairs need to be done - equipment needs to be replaced
you can't go "Oh this $300 billion factory will be reused every day so it doesn't matter that I spent $300 billion to build it"
the initial costs will be massive, as mentioned the current payload is only 8300kg - you're talking about launching hundreds if not thousands of rockets, each costing $30M+ to launch (not even factoring in the cost of the equipment you are launching to space that you intend to mine with)
there is also the ridiculous labor cost associated with this
the fuel alone required to deliver operations to space, the energy required to smelt the metals, the fuel required to return it to Earth makes it not economically viable, even if you paid zero for every other aspect of the business
>it would cost 10-50 million to operate space mining
Lol. You are completely delusional and have no understanding of how much things cost

>>60588742
>economic viability
my point is it does not matter if it is economically viable or not, look at SpaceX, there is nothing economically viable about colonizing Mars, yet it is still being worked on religiously. Coincidentally, this same tech can be used for asteroid mining.

>SpaceX Mars Colonization Mission
so you agree there is no inherent economical point to this project, although this is SpaceX's ultimate goal, to colonize mars. A project like this is pioneering technology for deep space travel for no economic purpose? That is BS.

There was economic purpose for the race to the Moon by all these different countries, and it was to demonstrate their military capabilities. To develop ballistic missile tech as well as other forms of tech.

>Asteroids between Earth and Mars
there are, do your research idiot. There are constantly asteroids nearly missing the earth.

I don't recall saying anything about making nuclear reactors or refineries on mars, because there are asteroids between earth and mars.

>trillions of dollars in investment
again, the tech is already being developed on by spaceX. and you went from billions to trillions and can't tell me how you got that number.

>>60585260 (OP)
Moon mining will, in 100-200 years
most of the platinum group metals on Earth came from asteroids, and Moon acts as a shield that intercepts asteroids destined for Earth, and due to no geological activity there, they all lie in their shallow graves, waiting to be mined

>>60588744
>OSIRIS-REx mission
why are you giving me a NASA mission? they don't use reusable rockets. they are using ancient technology compared to SpaceX. Why should I expect the payload from this tiny single use research spacecraft to match the amount a giant like the starship would be able to carry? Also the high cost of the mission includes the upfront cost of the spacecraft because their rockets are not reusable.

why don't you believe this is possible? we got people on the moon in the 60s, SpaceX has accomplished a lot in advancing space tech, and i think a finish line is within sight.

>>60588780
you literally fuckin said it would cost $30M to launch, and then ridicule me for my guess at 10-50M, which is right in the ballpark? I even spelled out what that cost would include, and I never mentioned cost R&D of a spacecraft (BECAUSE SPACEX IS DEVELOPING THAT TECH FOR "MARS COLONIZATION")

How much work do you think is left after developing a spacecraft that is capable of going to Mars and back? I will tell you right now because you are a midwit idiot, NOT MUCH!!!

Maintenance, fuel is cheap with a fleet of reusable spacecraft

>>60588841
>it does not matter if it is economically viable...colonizing Mars
>Coincidentally, this same tech can be used for asteroid mining.
>someone will decide to spend trillions on mining asteroids for precious metals while incurring a massive loss in the process
no. colonizing Mars is about expanding humanity beyond Earth; it is a very different goal than to be mining precious metals which is purely for financial gain
>the same tech can be used for asteroid mining
no, the tech can be used to launch the equipment that is developed to mine with; to transport the refined material back to Earth
I think you have a massive gap in your understanding of how space mining would work
You cannot just drag an asteroid back to Earth and drop it in the ocean
You cannot transport all of the material mined; even the most rich asteroids will have 90%+ of the total mass unusable
You're talking about launching an automated probe to collect material from asteroids, returning this material to be refined on Mars or the Moon, and then only sending the refined material back to Earth
>A project like this is pioneering technology for deep space travel
Unless it is economically viable, space mining will not be conducted on a commercial level; for example, right now NASA has a "miner" that is expected to bring back 2kg of platinum for a $1 billion price tag "space mining exists now!!"
this is not commercial space mining
>Asteroids between Earth and Mars
there are, do your research idiot. There are constantly asteroids nearly missing the earth.
It is within the asteroid belt that you can find asteroids such as 16 Psyche (asteroids where they have platinum / gold)
>I don't recall saying anything about making nuclear reactors or refineries on mars, because there are asteroids between earth and mars.
Anon you're not getting it, the asteroid is worthless unless it's transported back to Earth; you can't transport a whole asteroid, nor the mined material back to Earth, it has to be refined

>>60588902
anon you are brain dead
it is $30M EACH
$30M per rocket launch of 8300kg
think of all the equipment you would need to launch to space in order to commercially space mine - several million kilograms
you would need to launch thousands of rockets, to have the capability, even with the technological advances rockets will have in 25 years time
and again, there is so much more to the infrastructure to support space mining beyond just the rockets used for transport
you are focused on the truck that drives to and from the mine, but you are not focused on the mine, the smelting, the workers wages, the capital investment, the return on investment
>how much would it cost to build a massive nuclear reactor on Mars?
I think that you also think that I am saying that space mining will never be a thing
It will be, once it's economically viable to do so
Your timeline, 25 years, is just completely unrealistic, when we will still be mining a lot of gold on Earth by 2050
It's only after all the easily mined gold on Earth runs out that the price of gold is high enough to where it makes sense - this won't be for several decades after 2050 at minimum where the scarcity relative to demand is large enough

>>60588869
Aaaaaaand how much has Musk paid to make it possible to get to low Earth orbit? Home much fucking more is it going to cost to chase down an asteroid and return safely back home with more than a shovel full of ore. Do you think there really is an asteroid or minor planet make of nearly all gold or silver or the platinum group?
I think I saw a Doctor Who episode from the 70's based on this.

This shit is getting so tiresome. It's time to start the "new mine with more gold than has ever been found in all of human history found in some shit hole country in Africa or South America so undeveloped the whole country has less paved roads than Oakland Maryland" FUD again.

>>60585928
>free energy in the future
You don’t think humanity will be harnessing energy thousands of times more efficiently in 200 years from today?

Humanity is in the the biggest civilisation shock since the Industrial Revolution when gene-editing, AGI and energy production unlock their next “tier” no disease, lifespan doubled or tripled. AI doing 99% of the work on earth for basically nothing because energy will be so abundant.

100 years from now there will be no purpose for a human to do anything except enjoy the fruits of previous generations labour. There’s nothing a human can do that AI and robots can’t do better

Why would you ever date anyone when you can program a hyperrealistic girlfriend with a working womb/sperm with perfect genetic editing. Can probably program her to just gargle your penis 24/h a day. No teeth. As much tongue as you want, a vibrating finger massaging your prostate

personally I think the easiest way to mine asteroids would be to unironically crash them into the earth, of course this would never happen out of safety concerns, but all you need to do is find a really valuable asteroid and then put a couple of thrusters on it and as long as you are patient enough you can change it's orbit enough to hit anywhere you want.

Have it do a few flyby's of other planets and the moon to slow it down so it doesn't destroy the Earth, then crash it into the middle of the Sahara desert and mine the crater it makes, easy.

>>60588929
i never claimed a 25 year timeline

im not claiming we can drag an asteroid back to earth.
Im not suggesting we are hiring a bunch of astronaut miners. This entire process will likely be highly automated.

I definitely meant 10-50M Per rocket, and i never suggested it is 10-50M for an armada of rockets. I don't associate much of the cost with the mining because the way i see it, is is equipment that will drill into asteroids (The Boring Company) and other specialized equipment to collect.

I am arguing that there doesn't need to be an economic reason to do it, because there is no economic reason to Mars colonization. However that pet project is laying foundational work in terms of mining asteroids. "Trillions" of dollars of investment reduces down to billions and will reduce down further with each milestone they hit.

And once a single rocket is built that is capable of mining an asteroid and being reused it is over.

>>60588938
It's "Revenge of the Cybermen".
The Cybermen want to destroy Voga, the planet of gold in the orbit of Jupiter.
It that going to be the first place you want to go to?

>>60585335
>Bitcoin and crypto is in risk of being made worthless in the next 5 years thanks to quantum computers.
bitcoin is quantum resistant

bitcoin is N O T quantum resistant