How big are Honorverse Asteroid Belts?

SWM wrote:

wastedfly wrote:Observations, about. How came to be... Not a clue. How prevalent in the galaxy? Not a clue. Ergo the discussion at hand and how relevant to the Honorverse.

In short, can postulate anything one wishes as we know so little it is embarrassing.

Prevalent in the galaxy? We've been talking about the asteroid belt in our Solar System, about which we know quite a bit. And I should know, because I am the one who made the claim that the asteroid belt in our Solar System has enough material to build billions of superdreadnoughts. Please reread the thread.

[edit]As for how the asteroid belt came to be, no one has said that we know how it came to be. And that is irrelevant to the discussion of using the asteroid belt for raw materials, anyway. So I'm not sure why you are bringing it up.[/edit]

The distribution of minerals does matter though. We know there's lots of long dead, buried organic matter in the Earth's crust, but we can't just mine anywhere for oil, coal, etc.

We have a rough idea of what's in the asteroid belt, but we need more information than that before we can develop plans to use it efficiently.

I definitely agree that there are huge amounts of resources available in the asteroid belt, but there are huge amounts of resources available in seawater too, most of which aren't worth extracting due to the costs.

Lord Skimper wrote:It's a theory and as all philosophers know scientists hold theories as facts.

Theories are educated guesses.

Facts are true knowledgeable beliefs.

This is why String Theory is a Theory, and not a fact.

The Big Bang Theory is a Theory, and not a fact.

Not all facts stay facts either. They get modified and changed. Often modified by theories.

There is a difference between a Scientific Theory and what you think of a theory. Gravity is a theory. Please, go jump off a bridge and try to fly.

1) Crew, quit being a jack ass. Leave that to me.
2) Try science 101.

Observation
Hypothesis
Many observations/tests indicate creates a
Theory
Hordes of facts/tests corroborating each other creates
Scientific Law

- gravity is not a theory. Its a law.

Heard of a guy named Newton and his 3 laws? Not theories. Laws.

crewdude48 wrote:

Lord Skimper wrote:It's a theory and as all philosophers know scientists hold theories as facts.

Theories are educated guesses.

Facts are true knowledgeable beliefs.

This is why String Theory is a Theory, and not a fact.

The Big Bang Theory is a Theory, and not a fact.

Not all facts stay facts either. They get modified and changed. Often modified by theories.

There is a difference between a Scientific Theory and what you think of a theory. Gravity is a theory. Please, go jump off a bridge and try to fly.

wastedfly wrote:1) Crew, quit being a jack ass. Leave that to me.
2) Try science 101.

Observation
Hypothesis
Many observations/tests indicate creates a
Theory
Hordes of facts/tests corroborating each other creates
Scientific Law

- gravity is not a theory. Its a law.

Heard of a guy named Newton and his 3 laws? Not theories. Laws.

Scientific Theory:
A well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method, and repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation.

Cheopis wrote:The distribution of minerals does matter though. We know there's lots of long dead, buried organic matter in the Earth's crust, but we can't just mine anywhere for oil, coal, etc.

We have a rough idea of what's in the asteroid belt, but we need more information than that before we can develop plans to use it efficiently.

I definitely agree that there are huge amounts of resources available in the asteroid belt, but there are huge amounts of resources available in seawater too, most of which aren't worth extracting due to the costs.

Seawater is a bad example. The density of iron and heavy metals in an ordinary chondrite (the most common form of asteroidal material) is orders of magnitude higher than that dissolved in seawater.

But you are absolutely correct that the distribution of materials will make a difference in how you extract resources. It will affect where and how fast and how cheaply you can do it. It will presumably make less difference to Honorverse technology, but it still may affect which asteroids are priorities.

The original post asked whether the massive construction rates would deplete the three Manticoran asteroid belts soon. Even if you ignore low-grade asteroids, Manticore has plenty of materials for all the ships they need.

Lord Skimper wrote:Perhaps ships should be built out of poured thermacrete. CoG goes on about how nuke proof the building are. Why not pour a ship in a mold in a fully enclosed varied gravity environmentally controlled slip. No need to build a ship just pour mold and wire it. Add a armour nano weave around it and your new ship is done. Thermacrete is stronger than metal, heat and energy resistant unlike metal, etc...

A new option that would work for missiles too. Make them Hexagonal instead of round easier to stack, easier to fit in pods too and makes pods easier to stack.

As i have already suggested before, missiles should obviously be manufactured squareshaped to maximize the numbers you can carry.

And unless i totally misrecall, you´re talking about ceramacrete...

SWM wrote:

Cheopis wrote:The distribution of minerals does matter though. We know there's lots of long dead, buried organic matter in the Earth's crust, but we can't just mine anywhere for oil, coal, etc.

We have a rough idea of what's in the asteroid belt, but we need more information than that before we can develop plans to use it efficiently.

I definitely agree that there are huge amounts of resources available in the asteroid belt, but there are huge amounts of resources available in seawater too, most of which aren't worth extracting due to the costs.

Seawater is a bad example. The density of iron and heavy metals in an ordinary chondrite (the most common form of asteroidal material) is orders of magnitude higher than that dissolved in seawater.

But you are absolutely correct that the distribution of materials will make a difference in how you extract resources. It will affect where and how fast and how cheaply you can do it. It will presumably make less difference to Honorverse technology, but it still may affect which asteroids are priorities.

The original post asked whether the massive construction rates would deplete the three Manticoran asteroid belts soon. Even if you ignore low-grade asteroids, Manticore has plenty of materials for all the ships they need.

Sorry, you are right, I veered off topic.

Back on topic. Availability of raw materials in asteroid belts.

Agreed, an asteroid belt with significant mass will be sufficient for huge amounts of construction. At least for common elements. Depending on how the asteroids formed and what elements are required, there may be insufficient concentrations of some elements for a shipbuilding industry. That might mean that trade would be required with other mining systems, or mining in outposts outside the home star system. It's also possible that planetary mining or moon mining might provide higher useful concentrations of minerals than the asteroid belt.

In the case of the Empire of Manticore, that's a null issue. They have plenty of star systems to mine in now.

wastedfly wrote: Heard of a guy named Newton and his 3 laws? Not theories. Laws.

Thought this might be somewhat relevant

http://youtu.be/8yis7GzlXNM

wastedfly wrote:1) Crew, quit being a jack ass. Leave that to me.
2) Try science 101.

Observation
Hypothesis
Many observations/tests indicate creates a
Theory
Hordes of facts/tests corroborating each other creates
Scientific Law

- gravity is not a theory. Its a law.

Heard of a guy named Newton and his 3 laws? Not theories. Laws.

I believe the terminology and what it means has changed slightly over the centuries. Theory-based science is a mid-19th century invention. One of the first people to work that way was a guy named Darwin. Remember him?

wastedfly wrote: - gravity is not a theory. Its a law.

Actually, it is a theory, famously modified by some patent office clerk, and currently up for modification again due to some small thing.