• @vmaziman@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    138 months ago

    I’m sure mining in space will have its own problems but at least it can’t kill our biosphere

    • @schmidtster@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      58 months ago

      There’s been studies that have found metal particles in the atmosphere, so anything entering and exiting are seemingly shedding particles.

      So it’s likely to cause issues down the road unfortunately.

      • Neshura
        link
        fedilink
        English
        18 months ago

        I’ll take the issue down the road over the one already in my doorstep any time of the week.

        Atmospheric pollution is at least something that seems fixable with extraterrestrial resources. Ruined biospheres due to mining on earth seems less avoidable/fixable unless we go back to pre-industrial living standards.

        • @schmidtster@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          38 months ago

          How would it be fixable? The more stuff entering and exiting the atmosphere, the more particles. The particles aren’t from manufacturing on earth from what I read.

          • Neshura
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -28 months ago

            Particles we can bind with chemical reactions (like ad-blu for diesel engines), would be expensive and we would need to be careful to select chemical reactions that actually solve the problem but fundamentally it’s a fixable problem.

            • @schmidtster@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              2
              edit-2
              8 months ago

              Right, so by adding more chemicals, causing more unknown issues, we can fix an unknown issue. Which we would need to strip earth for even more to get to be able to use.

              Makes total sense!

              • Neshura
                link
                fedilink
                English
                1
                edit-2
                8 months ago

                Adding chemicals to reduce pollution is how every internal combustion engine works, especially diesel engines.

                Sodium reacts explosively with water, Chlorine is a lethal substance to humans yet when the two chemicals react they become a necessary part for our bodies. There are ways to turn toxic/harmful materials into harmless ones by adding more chemicals. The key part is making sure the result is actually harmless, which we can.

                Edit: also in how far would we need to strip earth further for this solution? In this scenario we’re already mining asteroids in space and there are (to my knowledge) no natural materials we can find only on earth, if anything there is stuff we can’t find on earth but do in abundance in space (like Helium).

                • @schmidtster@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  1
                  edit-2
                  8 months ago

                  Just because it can reduce pollution in a combustion engine doesn’t mean it translates to removing metal particulates from the atmosphere. Those are wholefully different scenarios.

                  We still barely comprehend the dangers of what we put in the atmosphere 3 decades ago, let’s not be adding more. Especially so when it’s completely unproven to this date.

                  You claim it’s a fixable problem, yet there is no proven method. And how could there be, we just found out about this issue this bloody week lmfao.

                  • Neshura
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    18 months ago

                    a fixable problem

                    it is though. We haven’t found a solution, we haven’t even started looking for one but it is fixable. There is nothing in the known laws of physics/chemistry inhibiting us from removing these particles from the atmosphere.

                    You claim removing particles from the atmosphere is completely different from removing them from exhaust gas. It isn’t. The only differences here is that we need to filter the stuff in a less than accessible location. Chemistry doesn’t suddenly stop working because we are in the atmosphere and not on ground level.

                    And we can figure out how that stuff is impacting the atmosphere, we simply haven’t bothered running the numbers and experiments on it because there’s no funding for it. This isn’t some weird black magic nobody can/has figured out. What do you think the scientists will do with the newly acquired info on added particles into the atmosphere? Look at it and hum and hah? No they’ll use the numbers to model long term impacts these materials will have and, if paid enough, even figure out ways to remove them again.

        • @AA5B@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          18 months ago

          How. Ruined biosphere from mining affects many discrete places that can be cleaned up, in theory. Messing up the atmosphere affects all biospheres, is much more vast, and we have to breathe in the meantime

          Look at current mining - true crimes against the environment in specific places but do not directly impact most humans. Could you say that about messing up the atmosphere?

          • FaceDeer
            link
            fedilink
            18 months ago

            Isn’t one of the current hot topics among environmentalists carbon capture, which is “cleaning up” the atmosphere as a whole?

            • @shottymcb@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              18 months ago

              The only thing carbon capture cleans up is CO2, and it’s not remotely feasible because it would require orders of magnitude more energy than the entire planet consumes even if it were 100% efficient, which it isn’t close to being.

    • Allseer
      link
      English
      38 months ago

      the asteroid belt is like a protective barrier. if earth’s orbit was on a flat surface the belt would be on it too. this imaginary plane is where earth is most likely to collide with extraterrestrial objects. so if it was possible to reduce the asteroid belt to half its current mass, earth would technically be more vulnerable to collisions along our orbital path. it’s not the biggest threat but i felt the need to explain that.