A couple of days ago Nasa did a marketing campaign on Youtube with a bunch of short videos announcing that in the next decade they will be putting a colony on the moon to support future operations for manned Mars missions.

I want to preface this by saying that I would like conversations about both scientific and philosophical ramifications of our first offworld colony. Like for example the Helium three mining that will both be fuel for future space craft and a supplement to boost the worlds economy once the logistics are worked out.

Will that boost further divide the poverty line from the extremely rich or will it boost the economy for everyone on the planet?

Do you think that the first child not born on Earth will be the start of an entirely different culture like some science fiction predicts?

Do you think once Nasa sets up a proper colony on Mars they will listen to most scientist and set up a cloud city on Venus to scoop up resources from Venus's atmosphere too?

Will Mars or Venus be the first attempt at terraforming and/or should we try to terraform?

Then there is the Asteriod belt which will be the most difficult and most rewarding to mine. In the Expanse television show with "belters" who formed an entirely different language with guttural sounds centered around spoty communications and because of no gravity extremely weak bodies compared to people on Earth after generations an interesting culture formed in my opinion. Will mining be worth it for people like that if it happened in reality?

Hopefully those conversation starters will get the ball rolling or if anyone else has questions or comments besides what I presented about this topic please feel free to present for a conversation.

It's likely that most bullies will continue being bullies, and most of those making do and persevering will continue persevering.



Firstly, I'm open to the possibility that homo sapien sapien may have an extraterrestrial component in our ancestry. A modern human, being born outside of Thunderdome (Earth) is sure to have significant impact on human culture. There will be those who see it as "stepping out of bounds" and fear the consequences. For others it will be uplifting and hopeful.



I think that terraforming a nearby planet, is just as out of reach, as traveling to the nearest "Goldilocks" planet is, at humanities current state of development. I think it's within our current ability to setup sealed long term habitats on the Moon or perhaps Mars. If it's done carefully and peacefully then I'm in favor of it.

The first thing I did was to search NASA on the first moon colony.
I found this article:
http://sservi.nasa.gov/articles/colonizing-the-moon/
and this one:
http://sservi.nasa.gov/articles/scientists-reveal-design-plan-for-future-lunar-base/
Both articles on a NASA site.

Scientists at the Global Lunar Conference in Beijing unveiled a preliminary plan Wednesday of what a future lunar base on the moon would like when it is built in the year 2050.
Its now 2019.

Due to the damaging effects of ionizing radiation, there is an unmistakable need for astronauts to be protected while in space for significant lengths of time.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/experiments/1806.html
In order to be feasible alternative, a shielding material needs to be inexpensive, easy to manufacture, moldable and easily integrated into the construction process. One such material fulfills these criteria. The proposal for NanoRacks-Awty-Radiation Shielding and Monitoring (NanoRacks-Awty-BE-HDPE Rad Shielding) is to use a Boron-enhanced High Density Polyethylene (BE-HDPE). This material has been studied as a shielding source against neutron radiation due to its naturally Hydrogen-rich composition, which attenuates neutrons rather effectively.
Spacecraft in low-Earth orbit receive some protection from solar and cosmic radiation thanks to the Earth’s magnetic field, although crew members on long-duration missions are exposed to radiation. Missions to the moon, Mars or asteroids will not be protected by Earth, and will require lightweight, durable shielding to safeguard human health.

How to Protect Astronauts from Space Radiation on Mars
http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/real-martians-how-to-protect-astronauts-from-space-radiation-on-mars
The second source of energetic particles is harder to shield. These particles come from galactic cosmic rays, often known as GCRs. They’re particles accelerated to near the speed of light that shoot into our solar system from other stars in the Milky Way or even other galaxies. Like solar particles, galactic cosmic rays are mostly protons. However, some of them are heavier elements, ranging from helium up to the heaviest elements. These more energetic particles can knock apart atoms in the material they strike, such as in the astronaut, the metal walls of a spacecraft, habitat, or vehicle, causing sub-atomic particles to shower into the structure. This secondary radiation, as it is known, can reach a dangerous level.

Polyethylene, the same plastic commonly found in water bottles and grocery bags, also has potential as a candidate for radiation shielding. It is very high in hydrogen and fairly cheap to produce—however, it’s not strong enough to build a large structure, especially a spacecraft, which goes through high heat and strong forces during launch. And adding polyethylene to a metal structure would add quite a bit of mass, meaning that more fuel would be required for launch.

Physical shields aren’t the only option for stopping particle radiation from reaching astronauts: Scientists are also exploring the possibility of building force fields. Force fields aren't just the realm of science fiction.

“Ultimately, the solution to radiation will have to be a combination of things,” said Pellish. “Some of the solutions are technology we have already, like hydrogen-rich materials, but some of it will necessarily be cutting edge concepts that we haven’t even thought of yet.”

In the real world, radiation contamination is a major barrier to human presence outside the Earth's magnetosphere. Until that problem is solved, there will be no habitats or manned spaceflights.

Let's just say we have successfully made it to and set up habitats on the Moon, Mars and in the clouds of Venus.

A child born in a space habitat or on a different celestial body will be born with birth defects because of gravity.
There is no such thing as a gravity-free environment.
In planetary space it is what is called Micro-Gravity.
The entire solar system is under the influence of the gravity of the Sun's mass and the mass of other celestial bodies.

A zygote gestated in micro-gravity or Mars gravity has never been attempted.
There is no data on how it will effect the zygote's development.
How important is gravity to how a baby forms?
Will the gravity effect cell division?
Natural child birth would be very hard but not for the obvious reason.
The child would not turn head down because there would be no sense of down or up. How would muscles form, bone, glands, its all in the air as to what would happen.

But, lets say it was successful.
The Space Between Us (2017) explored the limitations of a child born on Mars. It wasn't very accurate but it did address some problems.

If a child was born in microG or 'other' gravity and lives long enough to develop intelligence it would be a religion nightmare to most of the planet.
The first child born that lived would be a science project.
It could never come to Earth.
It would have no rights, no authority of anything.
Eventually, It will happen but the first will be non-human in all the ways we call someone human.

Terraforming a planet is fantasy from a reality perspective.
We may be able to understand the process need but planets are huge.
Again, gravity will play a part in the difficulty.
We know how elements react on Earth and in Earth's orbit but to change another world to have Earth-like features is not gunna happen.

The Earth was terraformed by nature.
It took billions of years to get it to this point.
Its not finished changing yet.
Its happening on an Earth-like planet under Earth-like conditions.

Mars is a Mars-like planet.
It has Mars-like conditions.
The same consideration stands for all the other celestial bodies in the solar system.
Even if we force a reaction, its gunna take a few billion years for the conditions to be similar to Earth.
That's if the planet can even support Earth-like conditions.
One good solar flare could blow all the terraforming back to square one.

Everything in Earth's system can be placed into one of four major subsystems: land, water, living things, or air. These four subsystems are called “spheres.” Specifically, they are the lithosphere (land), hydrosphere (water), biosphere (living things), and atmosphere (air). Each of these four spheres can be further divided into sub-spheres. To keep things simple in this course, there will be no distinction among the sub-spheres of any of the four major spheres.
http://www.cotf.edu/essc2/intro/spheres.html

To terraform another planet would require the 'spheres' of earth being transplanted.
The Biosphere is everything living and it all interacts with the planet according to Earth-like conditions.
You change those conditions and you change the nature of the 'spheres'.
The terraforming project will need all the interactions that are connected here on Earth. Thing is, how will plants root? How will bacteria move?
Will there be flies, mosquitoes, ants? How will these things interact with a different gravity?

Biodomes may be the only option.
Even biodomes would require a diverse interactive reaction of a complex system of 'spheres'. You will still have the problem of gravity defects to the flora and fauna in the domes.

I think asteroid mining will be accomplished by remote.
I imagines automated factories that fly to, land, extract and move to the next one.
People won't even be required to ship the ore to Earth.
That could also be done by automation.

Just gotta remember one thing.
If you remove the mass of something, its gravity changes and so will its orbital path.
If you change the influence effect of gravity on a body its going to change its trajectory.
Mining asteroids could cause collisions that eventually starts another planetary bombardment period.
Space is funny like that.

Even if we calculate and carefully monitor one asteroid's trajectory, it will effect everything its gravity currently influences. It would cause a chain reaction of unknown events that could come back and bite us in the butt.
Plus you have the growing mass of ore causing a change in gravity at the storage facility. If you essentially put another moon in orbit around the Earth you are changing a whole lot of things in the Earth system.
If you manage to send that ore mass to the surface, you are changing Earth's mass. Again causing many unpredictable changes in the Earth-like system.

Right now, when we strip mine material, the mass stays on the Earth.
What we send into space is insignificant to the mass of the planet.
If we strip mine the Moon or an asteroid, we will be removing mass to another place. Otherwise, what would be the point?

I don't know if i would classify the extremely rich as bullies. They definitely use their money to influence and control people but whether that is for the good of mankind as a whole is debatable. I brought this question up because of liking the ideals that Star Trek brought up of an utopian culture and hoping to get the opinion whether an influx resources might help steer us in that direction. Obviously i am an optimistic person but not naive. The question was definitely more philosophical in nature than scientific but if there are any sociologist that have opinions about this subject that would be great too.




Interesting. I always have thought since our atoms come from some huge star that exploded that, that would technically make us "alien" anyways but i get your point. Do you have a hypothesis of what the "extraterrestrial component" is like Transpermia or do you think it's more like our ancestors came from the stars and settled on this planet without preserving technology?

I for one am hoping for the uplifting and hopeful consequences mainly because I know living on multiple planets and\or moons will increase the likelihood of mankind surviving a catastrophe.



Yeah the terraforming question was definitely one that our current level of technology can't answer yet but the idea of it, when we can, should be explored in my opinion. Considering i am a physicist and not an environmental scientist i don't think i know enough to give an opinion one way or another but i am interested in other's opinion about it. I completely agree with you about the long term habitats being primary for survival on planets that are inhospitable to human life.

Of course there is also the philosophical question of whether we should change a world for our benefit. There could be unforeseen consequences like a sentient race of beings living underground that could be accidentally killed by the terraforming process or like in the case of Mars the soil has harmful poisons that could be released into the thickening atmosphere that would make Mars even more inhospitable for us.

Awesome, thank you kindly for all that information.



Biology is definitely my weakest knowledge base, so i really appreciate all your insights. Although there are problems with centrifugal or centripetal gravity like the Coriolis effect. There is a way to create habitats with a radius of a hundred meters that can simulate one G at a safe enough pace. What effect that would have on a new born, i couldn't say and ethically would be against trying even if it would save later lives.

I consider that first child born in space to not have any human rights to be one of the worst things that can happen to an individual. I hope that gets addressed before any child is born in outer space because human rights should be universal to which government those people are led by no matter what planet a person is born on. Something like that would start a war and i really hope that human rights on and off offworld planets will be decided before any children are born off planet.




Wow not only do you have great insights in biology with having the first child in space but your understanding of something so out of our reach as terraforming is just as interesting.

Mars not having a very good magnetic field would definitely hinder any progress in terraforming but i am sure something like that would be addressed before the process would begin. Wouldn't want to waste resources to have them completely fail because of the sun.

As said in the previous post to technovative I completely agree that long term Biodomes and/or habitats are the best way to go for our current understanding of survival on other planets.




I completely agree that we should be careful of the orbital velocities of asteroids but at the same time adding mass to Earth for stuff we need as far as non renewable resources would be worth the dangers of changing the orbital velocities of the planets and other big objects. Maybe there should be a solid limit to how many resources should be brought back in a year to be able to recalculate orbital velocities of the planets and other big objects in the solar system every year.

What a wonderful optimistic view you have, refreshing, Thanx.

On the asteroid mining subject...

What concerns me is the freshly verified gravitational waves.
The discovery concerned super mass effects of black holes and super dense stars but if I recall correctly I believe I read something about all mass having gravitational waves.

Consider the dynamics of the Solar system and the larger effects of the Orion Arm and the galaxy as a whole.
Right now, there is a pattern of interaction of all the mass as it exists now.
We track comet and asteroid paths.
As these objects move, they are influenced by the gravitational waves of all the other mass around it. We predict Haley's Comet, Apophis and a bunch of other objects as they move.
If we change the mass location of the objects that influence how these objects interact during their paths, we change the dynamic of the entire system.
If we mine asteroid 101b and move its mass to another spot, we change the pattern.
When we change the pattern, other objects will collide that would not normally collide, those objects the change the pattern more and more collisions occur. This change progresses in an ever increasing field of influence that makes currently stable orbits unknown.
We may be able to predict the major mass changes in the immediate future but since all mass effects gravity, even the small masses would need to be calculated over time.

If you put the mass of an asteroid in Earth orbit, it is going to effect the Moon and the Earth.
Then you have the difficulty of moving that mass to the surface of the Earth without melting it and causing a collision reaction.
The mass would have to be 'landed' under power.
Imagine trying to land Mt Everest on the Earth from orbit.
Even if we were to only move small loads at one time, to make it worth it, would require immensely powerful ships, huge amounts of fuel and many, many trips.

All the while, the mass is in orbit, effecting the tides, the Moon and our satellites. Plus as we haul parts of it down, that effect will change as the mass moves.

So, we would need to manufacture whatever we need that ore for, in space, away from the Earth and Moon. This would involve facilities needed to process the ore and more facilities to manufacture the product. Plus, all these facilities and the manpower need will have to be lifted and moved to the staging area. So now, you not only have the mined mass, you have the mass of the processor facilities, the mass of the transports, the mass of the human life support facilities and the mass of all the fuel that would be required.
With all that combined mass in a spot that previously had no mass, it would further change the patterns of movement.

The only way around the mass issue is to develop a way to nullify the mass, in turn the gravitational waves created by that mass.

One of the current ideas on deflecting an asteroid or comet is to park a mass beside it and slowly tug the object to a different path.

Deflecting Killer Asteroids Away From Earth: How We Could Do It
By Mike Wall November 07, 2011
http://www.space.com/13524-deflecting-killer-asteroids-earth-impact-methods.html
The problem with the Gravity Tractor method is that they are not considering the effects of moving the asteriod's path on the rest of the system.
Yes, we may be able to move 'that' object out of a colliding pat but did we move into another object's colliding path?
Did moving that mass from its path, leave a void that results in changing the path of other objects?
There is so many variables over such a long duration, it is currently impossible to predict all the effects in the Solar system.

Asteroid mining sounds like a good idea but there is too many variables to make it feasible.
IMO

Artificially generated gravitation effects by centripetal force may work in space habitats that can be spun.
However, you are not going to spin the Moon or Mars or any other large mass that we might set up a habitat on to simulate artificial Earth gravity.
Plus, look at the ISS.
It is our current scientific cutting edge orbital habitat which is in low Earth orbit.
There is no simulated gravity. There is micro-gravity from the Earth.

Eventually there will be an experiment on the ISS or a similar station that involves conception, perhaps even gestation and birth.
The first person born in space will be an experiment.
Its possible experiments have already be attempted with a 100% failure rate and have not been disclosed because they failed.
I think the first person born in space will be a secret.
Plus, once it is born, it will still have to grow up to be an entity with thought processes that deem it an intelligent being.

The thing about space is micro gravity causes bone loss. Blood is also dependent on gravity. Astronauts suffer adverse conditions during their short time in space, imagine a zygote trying to develop.
DNA is the pattern of our bodies (basically speaking). What happens to those patterns when gravity is removed or changed?
A baby could have bone because the growing process tries to keep the pattern but without gravity, that bone could develop anywhere in the zygote as the pattern of gravity or the lack of gravity demands on the organism.
Without gravity pulling blood, it would grow blood but that blood would remain in place, oxygenating only the immediate areas. I wonder if capillaries would even form?
The 'baby' would be a blob of organic matter in the womb.
It may not even survive early gestation?

But, for consideration, lets say a 'baby' is born on a station that is spinning under artificial gravity.
That child would essentially be a baby in a plastic bubble.
If we controlled the environment and it survives, it still would have no experiences of other human beings. It would never get sick, never experience wind or rain or bugs or viruses or anything a 'normal' person experiences that builds their life.
With nothing in common with any other human being, it might chemically and organically be a human being but will it be a person?

Frankly, IMO, I don't see how it could survive or if it did, how it could be considered a person.

Eventually, if technology advances far enough, a baby might survive.
But, will it actually be a human being resembling Earthlings?
Or will it be a unique new lifeform called a Moonling or a Marsling?
It won't have the same nature as Earthlings.
It will be a true alien.

Magnetic field (magnetosphere) is significant but not the only factor preventing terraforming.
Just like how gravity effects mass in the system, the biosphere effects how the environment develops.
Even if we introduce basic organics to an environment with the basic needs, for the planet-wide change to have any significance for life as we know it, would take hundreds of millions of years, at best.
Even if we manufacture an organic (algae?) that multiplies at lightning speed, it would still take a seriously long time for it to effect the environment and then you have a planet with algae (or another organic) rapidly throwing the balance of life off kilter.

So, lets say you fix the magnetosphere so the atmosphere is protected.
(Spin a molten iron core around a solid iron core)
You still have gravity to deal with.
You still have dead soil.
You still have temperature.
You still have to invent or find an organic to jump start the 'air' elements.
You still have the surface area of the planet to contend with.
You still have atmospheric pressure issues.
You still have to build a volume of atmosphere
Even if we get everything right to start making the planet support life, its going to take a lot of time to make it livable planet-wide.
Plus, it would have to be planet-wide because while biospheres may develop in pockets, it still requires global conditions.

Plus, with all the differences, it will never be Earth-like.
Gravity again will play a part in how life supporting organics develop.
Gravity always seems to get in the way.

One possible solution to the space station/spaceship gravity problem might be in using a chunk of a dead star.

You take a chunk of a dead neutron star.
You build a ship or habitat around it.
Its mass the acts like a gravity source to the ship or station.
Thing is, you now have the problem of movement.
For a station, thrusters might be able to maintain a position if they are strong enough.
For a ship, it would require massive amounts of thrust to maneuver it to where you want to go.
Plus, both would have to be tethered to it somehow.
Plus, as you move away from the mass, the gravity will be different.
Then you have the whole issue of mass again in starting and stopping the movement.

When the ISS needs an orbital correction, they don't send an astronaut outside to push it, too much mass.
Same thing.
Movement thrust would have to be greater that the mass inertia to get it to change position. Then you would need a greater thrust to stop it again.

Yes, we could build a structure around a chunk of high mass star material.
You would have gravity.
However, your structure will be moving at the speed and angle of the star material until you act on it with a greater force than its natural inertia.

Pretty cool for science fiction but not for reality.

It wasn't my intent to condemn all who have monetary wealth, and/or wealth of resources or influence, as being knowingly malicious. Star Trek the Next Generation is one of my favorite TV series. Primarily because of the portrayal of a future for Earth and Humanity that is virtually free of poverty and suffering. It is absolutely within our power as a collective, to make the choice to shift from a scarcity model, to systems that manage the abundant resources of this planet more equitably and rationally. If applied to the harvest of resources from other celestial bodies within our reach, I expect that would strengthen and improve us as a people.



There are intriguing suggestions of advanced beings from outside this world, having a presence here and influence in the development of humans and the last several millennia of civilization, all throughout the remnants of ancient civilizations on this planet.

Every Utopian society has a dystopian element.
Every Dystopian society has a Utopian element.

I like Star Trek.
My favorite series is ST:TNG
Its a fun idea but that is all it is.

The first thing I noticed about ST:TNG is the fact that there is no dust.
No Dust?
In the REAL world there is always something indicating dystopian effects.
Dust is easy to quantify.
The fact that there is no dust, no chaotic elements is an indication that it is entirely a fantasy world.
In Firefly, there is Dust.
There is chaotic deacy.
It is not a perfect utopian society.
Its that much more realistic because of the ... dust.

If you study the Star Trek Universe, it is defective because it is so perfect but, its not really perfect is it?
There are plenty of episodes that break the utopia suggestion.
Greed, power and wealth still exist. It just looks different.

Money, wealth, is a completely artificial value.
It shapes the world we live in but it is immaterial.
Wealth could be entirely removed from the world and people would still survive. The concept is difficult for many to grasp. We are so ingrained to it.

Take any issue facing mankind and remove wealth and money from the equation and allow people to work the problem without that restriction and many of the issues we deal with would be gone or rendered moot.

Imagine what would happen if NASA or the ESA no longer needed money.
The only thing that would stop us is lack of scientific understanding.
I can imagine a world with a 15 Billion population doing anything at any expense to fix the problems. At what point does survival of the species override the need for wealth?
Personally, I believe when the need arises, wealth will take a back seat to survival on a global scale. Problem is, you can throw as much money at a problem as possible but still not find a solution because the money stays with a select few. If money is no longer an issue, everyone can work on the problem at hand. More minds means faster solutions that work.

Back to science fiction...I like science fiction.
Science fiction is what is called Speculative Fiction.
Its fiction (fiction is not true as opposed to non-fiction, which is true), its speculative as in predictive based on what is understood about reality at the time of concept.
It is reckless to base an action on speculation unless there are immediate trends.
In other words, would you buy stock based on the corporations status 15 years from now? You play the immediate market.
If science fiction predicts all restaurants will be owned by Taco Bell in 100 years, do you go buy a bunch of Taco Bell stock?
Why then, would you base a future on science fiction?

While Star Trek is entertaining, it also has many, many writing and concept errors compared to reality.
Nearly all science fiction has inconsistencies.
Reality gets in the way of science fiction.
Thing is, reality is always reality.

There are many examples of science fiction becoming reality.
http://www.technovelgy.com/
Tracks them.
Its certainly an interesting site.
What most don't understand is the science fiction didn't create as much as predict.
Real science created them, science fiction just assessed the trends.
However, if you look at real science websites and the things that are discovered, created and proven, real people are working on cutting edge technology and understanding.
The Star Trek communicator is not the first concept of a handheld wireless phone. It gets credited because it is well-known.
Thing is, the real science has already surpassed the ST communicator.

All I'm saying is not to glorify science fiction when considering real science.
A base on the Moon, Mars or anywhere is science fiction because the reality is not yet science.
Anyone that suggests it without considering the reality to make it so is not practicing real science, they are grandstanding to the ignorant public.

I've thought about simulated gravity in a space station.
There are some obvious flaws in the thinking that would need to be rectified.

If you drop a perfect sphere straight down on a flat horizontal surface, the sphere will roll west.
This is because while the ball is falling, it is not connected to the surcae of the Earth. The Earth is rotating about 500 MPH to the East. That is why the Sun rises in the East and sets in the West.
When you drop the sphere, it contacts a moving Earth and results in a roll to the West because the contact surface is moving East.

Inside a space station that is spun to create artificial gravity, only the objects connected to the inside surface will have gravity.
If you hop up, you will change the surface position as the inner surface continues to rotate but the air inside is still in microG.


I have ridden a ride at an amusement park where you stand against the wall of a cylinder and it spins. It pins you to the wall and the bottom of the ride drops down and you are stuck to the wall.
If you throw a ball away from you, it moves sideways and down.
It moves sideways because it is no longer attached to the rotating surface but it is still moving at the same speed as you were till you threw it.
Throw a ball out of a car window and watch it, it moves in the same direction and falls to the ground.
It falls to the ground because it is still in the Earth's grvitational influence.
In your spinning space station, there is no gravitational influence.
The ball would move sideways from the inertia of the station but there would be no gravity pulling it down again.

Everytime you toss anything in the air, it falls back down because its thrust does not exceed the Earth's gravitational influence.
In space, if you let go of an object, it will pretty much stay there till it is influenced by some type of thrust.
In your space station, there is nothing to dictate the movement except the spin of the station.
You could float into the station, let go of a ball 1 meter from any surface and the ball would stay there as the station turns.
If you are standing on the inside surface, that ball would appear to move when in reality it is you that is moving.

Not likely to happen.

Mars doesn't have a magnetic field. Without such, solar winds will push what ever we make as an atmosphere off. It is why Mars doesn't have much of an atmosphere now.

Venus, is just too hot. Under that sulphuric clouded atmosphere, the heat is trapped and stays there. Removing a planet sized cloud cover that is acidic is likely more than we will do to just get sunlight to the surface. Considering that for all it's span of time, it is not probable we will never get the acid out of the soil.

There is much to be gained from mining the asteroids. While the elements to be gotten from them are limited in variety, the return is far greater than any mining can accomplish here on earth. Earthly returns from mining run not much higher than 12% of all material removed from a mine as quality material. The rest is mine trailings, for the most part not much good and treated as waste. Returns from asteroids on the other hand, return on the average higher than 80% pure or near pure materials. The problems come in when some rock is wanted to be moved from its present orbit to a near earth orbit. Every time it is done, there is an extreme danger to the earth itself. Given time, sooner or later, some yoyo will screw it up.

Ignoring the dynamics of gravitational influences, potential random reactions causing a billiards 'split' and the economics of such an enterprise, what makes you think the material in asteroids will give a greater return?

If I mine on Earth, the leftover, non-profit material requires part of the profit to remove/dispose.
In space, it doesn't need to be disposed.
But, what is done with it actually does matter to how the matter-balance of the system is distributed.

Back in 2050, the Sammy Dan Company mined asteroid NF3377 for rare materials and disposed of the excess material by ejecting it back into the asteroid field which caused accumulation on asteroid NT6179 that eventually caused it to intercept Earth and destroy Greenland. Sammy Dan Co. was sued for damages and is liable for the future impact of the loss of the Greenland ice sheets and the subsequent changes in the biosphere of Earth.
Earth is now no longer habitable because Sammy Dan Co. mined 6,000 tons of rare materials but failed to take precautions for their resulting changes to the system.

We are in a delicate balance with our solar system.
The mass of Earth prevents any significant change to the balance we might do.
We move mass around but its still the same mass.
But, when we start moving mass from one part of this system to another part of this system, it throws everything out of whack in ways that can't be calculated, even with our most advanced supercomputers.

Greater return but at what cost?

Research on this has been done long ago. It's a matter of economics and technology. Several companies have formed with this idea in mind.

Lighter elements mostly won't be available. Elements like platinum, gold, silver, iron, nickel, carbon, water in the form of ices. There are generally 3 types of asteroids, those with a high abundance of water, those with metal content, and those with even higher metal content.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid_mining

As for the value, this article will tell you that...

Who wants to be a trillionaire

https://www.engineering.com/DesignerEdge/DesignerEdgeArticles/ArticleID/15308/Asteroid-Mining-Who-Wants-to-be-a-Trillionaire.aspx

Even the engineering on how to get these items out of it have been looked at with the idea that nothing can be released. As you mention liability will rest with what will most likely be mining consortiums. Like it or not, some one will try it.

First, I agree, space mining will be lucrative.
But, its ot the profit margin that makes the significant impact on the future.
LOL, think burning fossil fuels.

Granted, money will drive the industry and those that exploit will make a lot of money but, there will be consequences.
There are always consequences.
However, the current consequences of of local endeavors do not threaten the entire planet on a destructive scale.
Sure, we could end all human life on the planet but we are not going to change the orbital dynamics of the planet that destroys it forever.

Asteroid mining could cause such a consequence that may be centuries or millenium in the making. But, who cares as long as you make money now?

People have the inability to understand the cause and effect of an action beyond their immediate future.
Thing is, we exist in a world where that ignorance is in our faces.
Do we learn from our past mistakes or do we just keep making bigger mistakes till there is no future.

Personally, I don't give a damn. I probably won't last another 10 years.
But hey, it makes money right?
What the hell?
How shallow can ya think?

The discovery of localized gravitational waves proves that mass is relative to mass.
You start moving mass around, you change the dynamics of the system once taken for granted.
You start a domino effect that will come back to you.
It is so precise with so many factors involved, there is no way to plan for every possible tangent.

But hey, I'm just an insane weird guy on a dating site.
What could I know?

OP
Are you really sure this will be the first one?