Can Asteroid Mining Technology Serve as a Global Defense System?

  • Thread starter thorium1010
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Asteroid
In summary, Google executives are backing a startup that plans to mine asteroids for metals. Despite some skepticism and doubts about the feasibility of the venture, the company plans to survey asteroids for their potential mineral contents and use future technology to make the venture cost-effective. The exact method of transporting the materials back to Earth has not been specified.
  • #1
thorium1010
178
6
Astronomy news on Phys.org
  • #2
Google Chiefs Back Startup Mining Asteroids for Metals

--- http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-04-24/google-chiefs-back-startup-mining-asteroids-for-metals.html [Broken] ---

It's an interesting article that apparently indicates a lot of big money backing about to be thrown at the problem.

Of course, imho at least, few of them have attempted to do the math ... while thankfully others among us have:

--- http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/10/why-not-space/ ---

Open for discussion, but imho there are more pressing needs and better ways to spend the money at the moment.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #3
thorium1010 said:
Is it worth spending billions for some technology for deep mining in space. Isn't it easier to bring those asteroids to Earth and then mine it here on earth.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17827347
There's the matter of slowing it down and bringing it to the ground intact.
 
  • #4
I have a feeling that at first and probably for a long time mining the asteroids will not be "worth it" however the technology developed to do such a thing probably will be more likely to be. Kinda like how going to the moon was not really "worth it" but the technology gained in doing so was more or less.
 
  • #5
I'll believe it when I see it. Sounds like a PR stunt to me, especially the projections of just a few decades ahead. Bear in mind the astronomical (pun intended) cost of the Apollo project just to get a brace of men on the Moon. I can't see a collection of companies wanting to spend the necessary tens of billions of dollars for decades on something that won't really pay off. I say won't really because economically they could invest those billions elsewhere to achieve their goals cheaper and more efficiently. There are plenty of recycling or mining technologies that could be developed and give far greater results.

Going to space to a large extent is ideological. There is really no good economical argument.
 
  • #6
It's pretty clear their only real intention for now is to survey asteroids for their potential mineral contents, and the assumption is that future technology will make the venture cost effective. That's a pretty standard practice. For example, the US and the Russians surveyed Afghanistan for its minerals estimated at over a trillion dollars in value despite the fact no one has figured out to ship them from the land locked country. As prices go up and technology improves, so does the viability of shipping over longer distances. That's just how long term planning works in these modern times where technology advances so fast it would be foolish not to take such things into account when talking about ventures decades in the future. With the kind of money and influence involved in this one you can be sure the government will support them as well.
 
  • #7
I'll believe it when I see it. Sounds like a PR stunt to me, especially the projections of just a few decades ahead.

I'm old enough to remember Howard Hughes' "Glomar Explorer", a cover story for deep ocean venture. The stated purpose was to pick up exotic mineral nodules from seafloor but what they were actually after was a Russian ballistic missile sub sunk out past Hawaii someplace.

What can you hide on an asteroid? Have we already lost something out there?

Where's our poster nsaspook?
 
  • #8


Higgs Boson said:
Of course, imho at least, few of them have attempted to do the math ... while thankfully others among us have:

--- http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/10/why-not-space/ ---
There are always naysayers. Sometimes those naysayers are right. There's no future in tulip bulbs. But more often than not they are very wrong. Sailing to the Americas is a waste of money. There's a world market for maybe five computers. There's no money to be made on the internet.

Open for discussion, but imho there are more pressing needs and better ways to spend the money at the moment.
Since it's private money at stake here, it's really none of your business.

Most of these new space startups will fail. That's the nature of startups. A few won't, and they'll make a killing. That's also the nature of startups.
 
  • #9


D H said:
But more often than not they (naysayers) are very wrong.
...
Most of these new space startups will fail.
So which is it? Most succeed or most fail?
 
  • #10


Jimmy Snyder said:
So which is it? Most succeed or most fail?

Most fail, but the claim that nobody will succeed is wrong.
 
  • #11
These guys could save a lot of money on rocket fuel by just camping out in Evo's back yard.
 
  • #12


D H said:
Sailing to the Americas is a waste of money.
I was hoping our resident space expert would see this thread :biggrin: I agree with you on the general point that we don't really know what tomorrow will bring but regarding this specific point about the Americas (I know you didn't mean it how I am responding to it but it's an interesting point).

I frequently encounter space enthusiasts (I use that term to mean people who grew up idealising John Wood Campbell stories and counting the days until they can move to Martian Domed City One) who compare manned exploration/colonisation of space to the settlement of the Americas. It's an attractive analogy but a deeply flawed one IMO. The cost of building a wooden sailing ship was negligable for a European nation. They also had free life support on the journey, a working ecology when they arrived and their technology base was primitive enough that a few hundred people could fufill the roles prevelant in society. Whatever the future of manned space travel is it will not ressemble this at all.
 
Last edited:
  • #13
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #14
jim hardy said:
I'm old enough to remember Howard Hughes' "Glomar Explorer", a cover story for deep ocean venture. The stated purpose was to pick up exotic mineral nodules from seafloor but what they were actually after was a Russian ballistic missile sub sunk out past Hawaii someplace.

What can you hide on an asteroid? Have we already lost something out there?

Where's our poster nsaspook?

That's a good point. A large number of rocket launches would require some kind of explanation to avoid escalating a new arms race. The X37 has been in orbit for over a year now without the public having the slightest clue what it is doing. The Pentagon is soliciting designs for disposable on-demand satellites, working on rocket designs to replace even the Saturn V, etc. while NASA scales back everything. I'd have to say it's pretty obvious the US government is more interested in dominating orbital space at this point then exploration.
 
  • #15


Office_Shredder said:
the claim that nobody will succeed is wrong.
That can only be established after the fact. The claim that nobody could succeed is different, all you have to do to falsify that is show that the science and technology are physically possible. Whether or not there will ever be a group that has a motive, will, means and resources is another matter.
 
  • #16
Ryan_m_b said:
I'll believe it when I see it. Sounds like a PR stunt to me...
I'll believe it when I see it. Sounds like arrogance to me.
 
  • #17


Office_Shredder said:
Most fail, but the claim that nobody will succeed is wrong.
I'm still waiting for the first to succeed! SpaceX is almost there, but as cool as it is that they have nearly reached their goal of becoming the first commercial space flight company, it is also a long, long way from being able to mine an asteroid. Just don't make the mistake of believing that if an internet billionaire can get a satellite into space that they can therefore mine an asteroid. They are nowhere close to equivalent tasks. Relative to that, the Spacex guys are just kids playing in a sandbox.
 
Last edited:
  • #18
russ_watters said:
I'll believe it when I see it. Sounds like arrogance to me.
Indeed, have you seen some of the timescales floating around?
BBC Article said:
They even aim to create a fuel depot in space by 2020...
...The inaugural step, to be achieved in the next 18 to 24 months, would be launching the first in a series of private telescopes that would search for asteroid targets rich in resources...
...The intention will be to open deep-space exploration to private industry...
...Within five to 10 years, however, the company expects to progress from selling observation platforms in orbit around Earth to prospecting services.
Not only that but apparently the budget is only in the range of millions. Considering the long development struggle that private companies have had even to launch to LEO such figures are optimistic to the point of stupidity. Having said that I'm not ruling out the idea that one day a company might put into orbit some probes that periodically foray out to chip away at nearby asteroids but definitely not within these time scales without orders of magnitude more finnancial commitment (which begs the question why not spend that money on more efficient means of achieving the goals i.e. recycling/mining on Earth).
 
  • #19
jim hardy said:
I'm old enough to remember Howard Hughes' "Glomar Explorer", a cover story for deep ocean venture. The stated purpose was to pick up exotic mineral nodules from seafloor but what they were actually after was a Russian ballistic missile sub sunk out past Hawaii someplace.

Indeed. And officially the mission that found the Titanic was an oceanographic scientific research, but truth is that it was a cold war mission to look after a nuclear submarine wreck. The Titanic was discovered only because they had some time left to look after it.
But having said that, I don't know what kind of interest military could have in asteroids... do they?
 
  • #20
Ryan_m_b said:
Not only that but apparently the budget is only in the range of millions. Considering the long development struggle that private companies have had even to launch to LEO such figures are optimistic to the point of stupidity. Having said that I'm not ruling out the idea that one day a company might put into orbit some probes that periodically foray out to chip away at nearby asteroids but definitely not within these time scales without orders of magnitude more finnancial commitment (which begs the question why not spend that money on more efficient means of achieving the goals i.e. recycling/mining on Earth).

...The inaugural step, to be achieved in the next 18 to 24 months, would be launching the first in a series of private telescopes that would search for asteroid targets rich in resources...
...The intention will be to open deep-space exploration to private industry...

I Think the only reasonable idea and goal that could be acheived is exploration and surveying asteroids. And the time scales they predict would not be sufficient for it. However it is one small step better than nothing (i.e. surveying asteroids). As to claims such as deep space mining they could decades even if they don't factor in recession. 0What would be the payoff. Companies don't invest in technologies that mature decades later . what is a reasonable time for a silicon valley start up to show profitability ? I think that should answer the question.
 
  • #21
Aidyan said:
Indeed. And officially the mission that found the Titanic was an oceanographic scientific research, but truth is that it was a cold war mission to look after a nuclear submarine wreck. The Titanic was discovered only because they had some time left to look after it.
But having said that, I don't know what kind of interest military could have in asteroids... do they?
Apart from the fact that this would violate Article IV of the Outer Space treaty there is no military advantage beyond orbit. Putting my moderator hat back on let's ensure that we don't head down the road of space/military conspiracy.
 
  • #22


thorium1010 said:
I Think the only reasonable idea and goal that could be acheived is exploration and surveying asteroids. And the time scales they predict would not be sufficient for it. However it is one small step better than nothing (i.e. surveying asteroids). As to claims such as deep space mining they could decades even if they don't factor in recession. 0What would be the payoff. Companies don't invest in technologies that mature decades later . what is a reasonable time for a silicon valley start up to show profitability ? I think that should answer the question.
I agree it is a good thing if the technology is developed. A major caveat to this for me though is whether or not it is the best way of achieving the goal of acquiring further resources. There are plenty of technologies on Earth (many that may benefit from this investment anyway) that could achieve this without the complication of going to space. Only a few years ago the material resources of Afganistan were estimated to be worth somewhere near $1 trillion but at the moment they are innaccessable due to economics. Why not work towards improving technologies (possibly automated) for mining on Earth?

Not to get too off-topic but ideally I'd like to see investment in better technologies, again possibly automated, for mining on land and sea as well as recycling. It would be great if we could send relatively cheap bots into a landfill site and have them (perhaps with a factory as well) strip everything down to component parts. Such technologies would also be a boon towards any effort for automonous in-situ resource allocation for a space mission whose justification is essentially ideology. In other words invest in Earth based technologies that may have space applications rather than the other way round.

Of course it's private money so they can do what they like with it but that's still my desire eitherway.
Bararontok said:
How will the probes send the large quantity of materials back to Earth? Because the news journals do not specify how this will be done.

Sources:

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-04-24/google-chiefs-back-startup-mining-asteroids-for-metals [Broken]

http://news.yahoo.com/asteroid-mining-venture-backed-google-execs-james-cameron-011205183.html
I don't think there are any firm designs yet but the impression I get is that the probes scavange fuel from the asteroid so as to return with supplies.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #23


Bararontok said:
How will the probes send the large quantity of materials back to Earth? Because the news journals do not specify how this will be done.
The mined asteroids will be in near Earth orbit, so any "sending" will mostly consist of "falling" :p
Granted, successful and safe reentry is not as trivial as I make it sound, but it is still uncomparably cheaper than the opposite - launching a payload to orbit.
Speaking of which, what makes you think they will even want to land the materials at all? They can instead just make use of them in space, saving us the huge expences that launching the same materials from Earth would involve. Of course, making use of minerals or metals directly in orbit is clearly a very long-term prospect, but so is the whole idea of the new organization. And at the same time water and fuel can also be "mined" from some asteroids, and these can be put to use right now.
 
  • #24


georgir said:
The mined asteroids will be in near Earth orbit, so any "sending" will mostly consist of "falling" :p
Granted, successful and safe reentry is not as trivial as I make it sound, but it is still uncomparably cheaper than the opposite - launching a payload to orbit.
Speaking of which, what makes you think they will even want to land the materials at all? They can instead just make use of them in space, saving us the huge expences that launching the same materials from Earth would involve. Of course, making use of minerals or metals directly in orbit is clearly a very long-term prospect, but so is the whole idea of the new organization. And at the same time water and fuel can also be "mined" from some asteroids, and these can be put to use right now.
Some materials (namely those of the Pt-group) would be returned to earth. Others would remain in space for application to structure or as fuel or as water.

The idea of mining asteroids and the moon has been around for decades, and there are numerous symposia and reports on the subject.
 
  • #25
What I understood from the press conference is that the mining will concentrate mostly on (a) water, which is intended to stay in space, and (b) minerals that are extremely rare on Earth but presumed frequent on asteroids, i.e. platinum; for the latter, it was mentioned that it is one of the few materials which cost more than the price to put them in orbit. It doesn't sound like large volumes need to be brought back to Earth for the business to be profitable.

Edit: Astronuc just got ahead of me. :)
 
  • #26
Astronuc said:
Some materials (namely those of the Pt-group) would be returned to earth. Others would remain in space for application to structure or as fuel or as water.

The idea of mining asteroids and the moon has been around for decades, and there are numerous symposia and reports on the subject.

Dodo said:
What I understood from the press conference is that the mining will concentrate mostly on (a) water, which is intended to stay in space, and (b) minerals that are extremely rare on Earth but presumed frequent on asteroids, i.e. platinum; for the latter, it was mentioned that it is one of the few materials which cost more than the price to put them in orbit. It doesn't sound like large volumes need to be brought back to Earth for the business to be profitable.

Edit: Astronuc just got ahead of me. :)
One wonders why mining sites of asteroid impacts doesn't get quite so much attention. It would also be interesting to see where the Moon factors into this, it's a lot closer and also has minerals rare on Earth. Though public campaigns against Moon mining would probably be greater than that of asteroids.
 
  • #27
Ryan_m_b said:
One wonders why mining sites of asteroid impacts doesn't get quite so much attention. It would also be interesting to see where the Moon factors into this, it's a lot closer and also has minerals rare on Earth. Though public campaigns against Moon mining would probably be greater than that of asteroids.
Certainly places like Sudbury (a large nickel deposit) are well known. It's Pt-Rh-Pd and associated elements that are rather rare and are of most interest.

These folks have been interested in the subject of a long time.
http://www.planetary.org/home/
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/

The subject has been considered at symposia such as the Symposium on Space Nuclear Power and Propulsion and successor programs, e.g., STAIF and NETS, as well as AIAA meetings and others. Somewhere I have one of the older reports.

Back in the 1980s there was a NASA/USRA program to support graduate students in reviewing and possibly reviving the work done from the 1950s through 1970s in various areas of aerospace and nuclear technology. Part of that was looking at new technologies to realize things like colonizing the moon, mining asteroids and missions to Mars.
 
  • #28
Ryan_m_b said:
Indeed, have you seen some of the timescales floating around?

Not only that but apparently the budget is only in the range of millions. Considering the long development struggle that private companies have had even to launch to LEO such figures are optimistic to the point of stupidity.
These people are not stupid, so what are the other possibilities?

These numbers simply may not be serius. They may be a publicity stunt designed to see if they can scare-up some investing.
 
  • #29
Dodo said:
What I understood from the press conference is that the mining will concentrate mostly on (a) water, which is intended to stay in space, and (b) minerals that are extremely rare on Earth but presumed frequent on asteroids, i.e. platinum; for the latter, it was mentioned that it is one of the few materials which cost more than the price to put them in orbit. It doesn't sound like large volumes need to be brought back to Earth for the business to be profitable.
What do you consider "large volumes"? Platinum and gold are worth about $25,000/lb. If they can put $10 billion into development and spend $10,000/lb to recover it, it would take 666,667 lb to break even.

And I consider those numbers absurdly optomistic.
 
  • #30
russ_watters said:
These people are not stupid, so what are the other possibilities?

These numbers simply may not be serius. They may be a publicity stunt designed to see if they can scare-up some investing.
Probably a combination of PR for show and to gauge the feedback from investors.
russ_watters said:
What do you consider "large volumes"? Platinum and gold are worth about $25,000/lb. If they can put $10 billion into development and spend $10,000/lb to recover it, it would take 666,667 lb to break even.

And I consider those numbers absurdly optomistic.
A bit of googling tells me that 666,667lbs is nearly 5 times global annual consumption. Even if they did achieve that the flooding of the market would most likely massively deflate the value.
 
  • #31
Ryan_m_b said:
It would also be interesting to see where the Moon factors into this, it's a lot closer and also has minerals rare on Earth.
It's much more expensive in terms of Δv to go to the surface of the Moon than to go to the surface of a near-Earth asteroid. It's similar much more expensive to come back from the surface of the Moon than from to the surface of a NEO.

The Moon can factor in, however. It can make the trip to and from a NEO even cheaper if the vehicle steals some momentum from the moon via a gravitational slingshot. Using the Moon in this way could make the required Δv to the NEO less than Earth escape velocity.
Though public campaigns against Moon mining would probably be greater than that of asteroids.
Yeah. That fragile environment of the Moon needs to be protected.
 
  • #32
D H said:
It's much more expensive in terms of Δv to go to the surface of the Moon than to go to the surface of a near-Earth asteroid.
Ah cool, good to know :smile:
D H said:
Yeah. That fragile environment of the Moon needs to be protected.
It's not a case of environment, Antarctica has a fairly sparse ecosystem but it's a global reserve. There was a debate at my undergraduate university about the exploitation of space and there was a strong movement for keeping the Moon in a similar state. I'm not saying I agree but highlighting the issue.
 
  • #33
Many of the investors in this project are not looking for an ROI in the next few decades. Larry Page and Eric Schmidt have a history of investing in projects because he thinks they are exciting, of benefit to society, and may pay off in the long run (see: automatic cars for example). James Cameron recently financed his own trip to the Marianas Trench. Charles Simonyi is a repeat space tourist. All of these people have a history of spending huge amounts of money on things they think are exciting, beneficial for humanity/science, and/or have a small chance of paying off huge in the long run.

One of the founders, Peter Diamandis, founded the X Prize foundation. Both founders, Diamandis and Eric Anderson, are aerospace engineers and founded the company Space Adventures. They have experience making money from space technology (I believe Space Adventures has been profitable so far, but can't find any details).

Further, all the calculations earlier in the thread assume only one source of income. Their first intention is to 'produce' water (and probably other chemicals, maybe they can find a source of fuel) in space for other (government) space programs, to save them having to bring their own. This alone may be profitable in the long run, though probably not a very good ROI. Following that they intend to mine for stuff to return to Earth. If they intended to make their entire ROI from mining platinum, as pointed out above, they would flood the market and drive down the price, and it wouldn't work. However, there are other rare minerals that can be mined as well. It may be possible to produce net profit without flooding any particular market, especially when combined with the sale of water and other chemicals to other space programs.

All of that is in addition to the fact that they get patents on all the technologies they develop along the way. Robotics, automation, aerospace, mining, telescopes, maybe some radiation shielding. Any of these technologies can have more immediate applications here on Earth. They can either spin off other companies along the way, or license the technology to other companies. Given that virtually every technology that needs to be developed for asteroid mining has direct and immediate applications in existing markets, it could end up being profitable even if they never bring back so much as a drop of water.

In summary: I think it's likely that this will work, in the sense that they will eventually bring something back from an asteroid. They have enough money behind it, from people who are not averse to risky, long term investments in exciting new technologies, and enough different avenues for producing revenue for it to work. That's not to say that the investors won't lose a lot of money in the process (or possibly just make less than they would in other more conventional investments), but they all have the money to lose.

My only concern is with the company name, Planetary Resources: It sounds just vague enough to be straight out of a distopian sci-fi movies. Kind of like Umbrella Corporation, Omni Consumer Products, Buy 'N Large, or the Soylent Corporation.
 
  • #34
Reality check for asteroid miners ...

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/24/11375462-reality-check-for-asteroid-miners?lite [Broken]

But hey! Their website is already up and running - at least that's a start ...

http://www.planetaryresources.com/

Excerpted quote from the MSNBC article linked above:

"There's a significant probability that we may fail," company co-chairman Eric Anderson acknowledged during today's big reveal at Seattle's Museum of Flight.

At least two things are certain: Planetary Resources is already bringing in income, and it's intending to launch real hardware within two years. "This company is not about paper studies. ... We're not just talking about it. We've done enough of that," Anderson said.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #35
The trick is to create an industry to do this as you go. We already know how to launch spacecraft to NEO. Build a small fleet of more efficient Shuttle 2.0 craft and pay for the trips by carrying commercial satellites to orbit. The first missions also carry the modules of a modest space station where the deep space vehicles will be assembled by crewmembers. The space station could also have a space tourism hotel module to pay for itself. The booster pods for the now defunct shuttles were perfect for these kinds of constructs but were foolishly allowed to burn up upon re-entry. So the bottom line start up cost is relatively low and doesn’t require any new technology.

Next, a simple group of automated probes go do a recon of which asteroids you should mine first. This survey would then be followed by a larger probe that nudges the target asteroid into NEO where the raw materials are extracted. The probe could use pellets made from material on the asteroid itself and shot out of a rail-gun on the probe to provide the thrust. A solar sail could deploy the probe to the asteroid, so once again, low cost and existing tech. Silicon from the Moon can be fused in solar powered kilns on the space station to make ceramic re-entry tiles. A simple re-entry pod could be constructed in orbit and used once per cargo load sent to Earth. The tiles might even be sold as souvenirs, since they were “Moon rocks”. As the asteroid u-haul process gains momentum, more ambitious programs could be funded. Once it starts, there’s really no reason to stop at one trillion dollars. A ten mile diameter nickel-iron asteroid has more ore on it than has been mined on Earth in all of history.

Spaceward ho!
 
<h2>1. Can asteroid mining technology be used to deflect or destroy incoming asteroids?</h2><p>Yes, asteroid mining technology has the potential to be used as a global defense system against incoming asteroids. By mining asteroids and extracting resources, we can develop technology to either deflect or destroy incoming asteroids before they reach Earth.</p><h2>2. How would asteroid mining technology be able to defend against potential asteroid impacts?</h2><p>Asteroid mining technology could be used to extract resources such as water and metals from asteroids. These resources could then be used to develop technologies such as kinetic impactors or gravity tractors, which could be used to deflect or destroy incoming asteroids.</p><h2>3. What are the potential benefits of using asteroid mining technology as a global defense system?</h2><p>Aside from defending against potential asteroid impacts, asteroid mining technology could also provide access to valuable resources that are becoming scarce on Earth. This could lead to economic benefits and advancements in technology.</p><h2>4. Are there any potential risks or drawbacks to using asteroid mining technology as a global defense system?</h2><p>One potential risk is the possibility of accidentally causing more harm than good by disrupting the trajectory of an asteroid. There are also ethical concerns surrounding the mining and exploitation of resources from celestial bodies.</p><h2>5. How far along are we in developing asteroid mining technology for use as a global defense system?</h2><p>While asteroid mining technology has made significant advancements in recent years, we are still in the early stages of developing it for use as a global defense system. More research and testing is needed to fully understand its capabilities and potential limitations.</p>

1. Can asteroid mining technology be used to deflect or destroy incoming asteroids?

Yes, asteroid mining technology has the potential to be used as a global defense system against incoming asteroids. By mining asteroids and extracting resources, we can develop technology to either deflect or destroy incoming asteroids before they reach Earth.

2. How would asteroid mining technology be able to defend against potential asteroid impacts?

Asteroid mining technology could be used to extract resources such as water and metals from asteroids. These resources could then be used to develop technologies such as kinetic impactors or gravity tractors, which could be used to deflect or destroy incoming asteroids.

3. What are the potential benefits of using asteroid mining technology as a global defense system?

Aside from defending against potential asteroid impacts, asteroid mining technology could also provide access to valuable resources that are becoming scarce on Earth. This could lead to economic benefits and advancements in technology.

4. Are there any potential risks or drawbacks to using asteroid mining technology as a global defense system?

One potential risk is the possibility of accidentally causing more harm than good by disrupting the trajectory of an asteroid. There are also ethical concerns surrounding the mining and exploitation of resources from celestial bodies.

5. How far along are we in developing asteroid mining technology for use as a global defense system?

While asteroid mining technology has made significant advancements in recent years, we are still in the early stages of developing it for use as a global defense system. More research and testing is needed to fully understand its capabilities and potential limitations.

Similar threads

  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
810
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • Sci-Fi Writing and World Building
Replies
21
Views
850
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
22
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
932
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
4
Views
2K
Back
Top