The downside is the nagging feeling like you should be wearing oversized futuristic pauldrons and a ridiculous-looking Space Belt all the time.
When some of us get re-orged to that remote mining outpost and are forced to share quarters with some cheap, rubbery-skinned, impolite replicants, we're just going to have to make do, and don some superfluous equipment from sporting goods.
That is, I'd have to lose some weight first.
 - http://img3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20121217161450/memoryalph...
The future: where everyone looks fabulous!
(Also, it's prior art. USPTO, pay attention.)
% as well as avoiding infection by alien organisms once sample returns become commonplace.
That's an embarrassing configuration oversight -- it doesn't cost any more to add the "www" prefix to one's DNS record, and in the worst case the two names can be merged as one or the other.
In the worst case, someone could hijack the unused form and use it to redirect traffic anywhere they want.
1. Not a bad ROI to save a global economy with a GDP of $77.609 trillion and population of 7.095 billion.
2. The side benefit is understanding how to mine NEOs worth billions.
3. I would like to buy an insurance policy against an impact. I bet it would be super cheap as there is very low risk, but would get me to Mars or ISS.
Sounds ominous! Why aren't we more worried? Because Capitalism?
For example 2017 is the year when some of the most used rare earth elements will be depleted and should be retrieved through recycling in the next years (gallium for the LCD displays is disappearing, so either we figure out the displays or massively recycle). This is not a surprise because the demand for rare earth elements has been rising exponentially, with the number of electronic devices produced :D
Although, food production is definitely getting more and more efficient. But biology of living beings on Earth is too inefficient for the current production to be sustainable. Just compare the vast amounts of food (energy) a single duck, chicken or cow needs to maintain body heat, with the weight (energy value) of meat. This coupled with growing consumption in developing countries won't really work.
Without Hot Air is an excellent book written by a problem solving pragmatist and excellent machine learning researcher David MacKay exposing the pure numbers and limits and extrapolating them carefully, to get the same conclusions.
There's absolutely no way that there's one million gallium reserves economically viable for extraction. If there was, the price wouldn't be that high.
Hafnium and indium too. 2017-2020.
For most non-energy non-renewable resources, humanity can just pour more energy than they do now into securing the scarce resource, and things will be a bit more expensive, but less concentrated ores will be targetted and more expensive extraction methods used and the supply will hold up at a higher price. Substitutes will be sought and some will maybe be found, if they work out better than the now-pricier resource.
Finance abhors an inexpensive depleting natural resource it has no substitutes or emergency supply for: if it is economically viable for one investor to buy all the world's remaining supply of Technetium, he will stockpile it and trickle it out to the resource-starved market at ten times what he paid. To assert that "lack of education" is the problem is ignoring the numbers issue: it only takes a single smart investor to turn the whole market towards appreciating reality-mandated scarcity, and he earns a very large profit for educating the market.
Fossil fuel extraction concerns have a better basis: they have a floor at which it is mathematically impossible to profit from extraction, EROI<1, so long as you are using the energy you extracted to harvest more energy. I was for a period of five years or so an alarmist on this point. Even so, it looks like there exist enough positive EROI deposits to raise global CO2 by an untenable amount (an amount which depopulates >10% of the world's presentday habitation due to high wet bulb temperatures), long before we run out of coal, oil, gas, & kerogen shales.
It's pretty safe to assume an equilibrium between these sorts of processes, and a lack of "glaring upcoming shortages that Capitalism Didn't Listen To Our Warnings About".
At least, up to some level - maybe two or three decades - at which uncertainty about future inflation rates and technologies renders it really risky to make long bets of any sort.
In the end of the day, that probably means that we'll get our gallium, but we'll have to pay more for it.
1) Known reserves likely represent a fraction of what is available because we have not had reason to search for new reserves.
2) We do not really consume any of those resources in the same way that we consume fossil fuels, so as a worst case scenario, we can simply mine them from our landfills. This arguably falls under new, more expensive, reserves.
Not to my knowledge. I believe parent is being sarcastic. If an impact event occurs: a) claimant might be too dead to make the claim or b) markets would probably collapse, making the payout worthless. So there is very little point in buying that kind of cover, the only party with an upside is the insurer - hence parent volunteering.
On the upside, if you're really worried about needing $10,000,000,000 of coverage, and you're willing to pay the premium, you can get it. You just have to make the deal sweet enough for him to take it. and you have to guess right the first time.
EDIT: The first site you linked, that is :)
His proposed method of asteroid deflection is actually based on using nuclear explosions to shift orbits minutely far in advance of impact. Timing makes it pretty useless for war (as you point out), but very effective indeed for creating a precisely scheduled apocalypse and the global collapse and panic that likely precedes it.
Wow! That's pretty awesome, but I'm hoping they plan this one _very_ carefully and/or pick a small asteroid.
We're already able to send probes to Pluto within a few kilometers, calculating an asteroid's orbit is well within our capabilities.
Yeah calculating the orbits and movements for a simple small mass might be fairly easy. But an asteroid is irregulary shaped which makes stuff quite complex. We have failed with Philae for example...
The only way this is going to work is with a powerful nuclear bomb mounted on an interstellar rocket to blow said astroid to pieces (and these pieces should be tiny enough to vanish during atmospheric reentry), should the need arise - however the EMP would fry at least the satellites in orbit, maybe also on the ground.
Nukes might be a solution of last resort for a late detection, but with enough early warning there are far more gradual and precise ways to do it (and they don't sandblast the planet, either).
Does anyone have a sense of how many potential near-Earth objects have a rocky surface with large boulders as required by this mission?