-4

In space, what resources, are worth acquiring from one part of space, and sending to another?

a4android
  • 38,445
  • 8
  • 54
  • 143
speeder
  • 716
  • 4
  • 14
  • 1
    Your question is gonna get closed most likely, this isn’t they type of questions we ask. – DT Cooper Aug 11 '20 at 22:36
  • 1
    Be sure to check out the [tour] and [help] so you can get a better idea how to ask questions on WB.SE! – elemtilas Aug 11 '20 at 22:47
  • 4
    Please don't repost closed questions; edit the existing question instead. I can tell that you're frustrated, and I can understand why, but breaking the rules out of frustration isn't going to win you any favours. – F1Krazy Aug 11 '20 at 22:54
  • 2
    I'm not sure there is a lot of relevant empirical evidence or papers to cite. Are you sure you want the hard-science tag? – user535733 Aug 11 '20 at 22:56
  • @F1Krazy then fix the interface, I made a new question because of this text: Your post has been associated with a similar question. If this question doesn’t resolve your question, >>> ask a new one. <<< – speeder Aug 12 '20 at 01:32
  • @soeeder how does the long chain of duplicates not answer your question? There is a ton of text on transportation costs, relative abundance of materials, distances involved etc. If you still don't think the topic is covered enough, editing your previous question to explain how you still don't feel answered is the way to go. – The Square-Cube Law Aug 12 '20 at 02:45
  • 2
    As I commented to your first post: what wouldn't be shipped? Per our [help/dont-ask], To prevent your question from being flagged and possibly removed, avoid asking subjective questions where every answer is equally valid. Trade is very rarely dependent on the transport mechanism. It's always a function of supply-vs-demand. If a planet needs [any item] and it's cost-effective to ship it, you send [any item]. Asking for an infinite list of things is off-topic. – JBH Aug 12 '20 at 03:13
  • It is not an infinite list of things. We know what elements exist in the universe and in our galaxy, we know their purpose, we know how much it costs in energy at least, to move them. What I asked is a quite finite list, for example hydrogen wouldn't be on that list, becuase you can find that everywhere, no need to ship it, thus already proving the list is NOT infinite. – speeder Aug 12 '20 at 05:34
  • @speeder That's out of my power, but it's a known issue that's been brought up repeatedly. – F1Krazy Aug 12 '20 at 06:52

3 Answers3

4

Here's a formula for computing the cost of interstellar shipping :

$E = {1 \over 2}mv^2 \rightarrow $ (v = c %c) $\rightarrow {{(cruise speed)^2 \times c^2} \over {efficiency}}$

From the kinetic energy equation. Where cruising speed is (%c). Efficiency is between 0% and 100%. And $1 \over 2$ falls away because the load accelerates and decelerates (2 operations). This gives you a fuel cost to move the load (in Joules).

To translate from Joules to 2020 equivalent currency, refer to your local utility bill for the price of power per kilowatt hour (in my area it's between USD $0.04 per). To convert from Joules to kWh, divide 3.6 million.

$P = {{E} \over {3,600,000}} \times 0.04$

But that's not all. There's the opportunity cost of tying up these resources for the multi-decade trip.

$t = {{distance} \over {cruise speed}}$

The net present value or opportunity cost then is :

$PresentValue = {FutureValue \over {(1 + rate)^{time}}} \rightarrow FutureValue = PresentValue {(1 + rate)^{time}}$

Rate is the appreciation of some other opportunity (like stocks or bonds). 5% is an often used amount.

Try it out :

Price per kg to ship 10 light years at 30% c, using 100% efficient antimatter fuel is : (2 * 0.3^2) / 1.0 ... 2 * 0.09 ... 0.18 c^2 or 1,620 terajoules.

In USD, it'd be 4.5 billion kilowatt hours. At 4 cents a piece, that will cost $180 million per kilogram shipped.

The load will be traveling for roughly 30 years (10 light years / 30% the speed of light cruise speed). The net present value of the load is my costs, which will be locked-in for 30 years. To break-even, I hope in 30 years to sell for a future value of $(1.05)^{30} = 4.32$ times the principal.

In this case 4.32 times $180 million per kilogram.

Which is USD $777.6 million per kilogram shipped.

To be "worth it", you'd hope to get at least a reasonable profit, maybe 3% on your sunk costs. So it would need to be something you reasonably believe can be sold at it's destination for about USD $800 million per kilogram.

The price of energy is key

This is very susceptible to the price of energy. Let's say fusion technology cuts energy prices by three orders of magnitude, and antimatter technology cuts energy prices by another three orders of magnitude.

Same calculation is now $8 thousand per kilogram.

At this price many materials (like gold @ 64,000 USD per kg, or Ruthenium @ 160,000 USD per kilogram) are within reach of profitability.

James McLellan
  • 18,686
  • 1
  • 28
  • 69
1

Information. It can be sent via radio or laser beams. Most material resources can be obtained at any feasible destination. The energy cost of shipping across astronomical distances will be itself astronomical. The energy cost of sending information will be trivial by comparison.

REFERENCE:

Greg Costikyan, The 11 Billion Dollar Bottle of Wine: The Possibilities of Interstellar Trade (Originally published in ARES, January 1982).

a4android
  • 38,445
  • 8
  • 54
  • 143
1

Any physical matter is worth transporting in space depending on two things that come to mind:

  1. What can be done with the matter at the destination that can’t be done at the source?
  2. Is the cost of transportation less than the value of the resource at the destination?
JayB
  • 147
  • 3