How space travel can create a manufacturing revolution for mankind ?
In order to fit with the sustainable milestones of the city of the Future, the production and manufacture for future factories must support sustainability principles and have out-of-the-box thinking. Based on that and on the former inspiring answer of Clémence DELATTRE, I will try to give another direction for raw material collection.
Where could the big factories be located ? It is an interesting question. As it is often big unappealing buildings, no-one would want them near by their houses. However, if we want to reduce the size of the cities, factories would be near schools, churches, parks which is not socially sustainable.
From solutions to other problems emerged (as the use of space or the energy), space could be a solution for the complete delocalisation of the manufacturing process.
Imagine a world where the construction of your household appliances, coffee makers, computers and bicycles no longer pollutes. According to experts, between 10 and 22% of the total greenhouse gaz emitted come from that industry. What's more, if we extrapolate downwards that without manufacturing, a third of transport-related pollution would also disappear, this would mean that, on average and depending on the source, around 40% of total CEO and greenhouse gas emissions would disappear from our daily lives, probably helping some Asian cities to live without masks.
The obvious answer every reader will get when they arrive here is: But the rockets will be much worse than that in terms of pollution?
Today, the answer is certainly valid. However, if we look at the price/kg curves sent into space (table 1 in the appendix), this cost has been completely broken, which can be smoothed out as a 5.5% annual reduction. It is clear that the cost of launching into low Earth orbit (LEO) is one of the key factors in the long-term success of this type of objective.
If we look at SpaceX's recent successes, which were repeated in mid-January 2025 (https://x.com/teslaownersSV/status/1881075912281882635), we are currently passing a milestone in terms of material recovery and therefore a concrete reduction in the costs involved (plus if we add the environmental savings of not having to remanufacture these parts, which are very expensive and difficult to design).
Another issue that will have to be addressed is energy. Rockets powered by Ergol or other combustion-based fuels are bound to pollute. However, a study by ‘Le Monde’ in 2023 shows that the share of space pollution in total transport pollution is still tiny. It should be made clear, however, that the more the number of flights increases (which is the case), the greater the risk that this share will also increase.
Many players (ESA, SpaceX and Japan's national space agency, JAXA) are investing in and actively seeking solutions to reduce the environmental costs of take-offs.
Researchers are looking for solutions in two directions:
-Making a more efficient rocket that requires less fuel
-Making a cleaner fuel that pollutes the environment less.
By researching the two issues simultaneously, it is possible to improve on all the current problems. Even if an electric rocket would be utopian because of the battery requirements and the current need for combustion to escape the gravity of the blue planet, it is interesting to ask whether electrification could be useful when leaving Earth orbit.
Lastly (before dwelling on the benefits of this proposed answer), it's worth looking at the conditions for space manufacture:
The Moon could be an interesting place. Despite its lower gravity, it has gravity and would allow our facilities to stay where we put them. However, the risk associated with flying stars that regularly crash into the Earth's sattelite would force us to make strict siting choices. Incidental radioactive bombardment from the sun would also be a major threat. Settling in caves or at the bottom of craters could be an interesting solution.
On the other hand, there's our Earth orbit. If we solve the Kessler problem, which is hanging over our heads a little more every year, it could be a perfect place for our factories. Still above LEO, full of sattelites, Geostationary orbit (GEO) could be the ideal place. Keeping the orbit and therefore security and having lots of space. Here again, there are problems of solar radiation, but we'll be closer to our planet to bring back manufactured materials.
Now let's talk about outcomes.
How do you bring them back?
As the Kurzgesagt video explains, if our space factories send back locally-manufactured ‘pods’ containing the resources they've obtained, all we have to do is collect them from down below.
The benefits of this expansion could be substantial:
In terms of mineral resources, the asteroids contain more ore than we've ever seen before, and the Moon is home to large quantities of Helium-3, an isotope of Helium that could be the key to nuclear fusion and therefore to clean, almost infinite energy.
On the other hand, it might be conceivable to send agriculture up there, in huge space farms, as Clémence mentioned with seaweeds or coconuts.
With the possible economic explosion of the space sector and the drastic and incremental improvement of our means of transport, it would be possible to have cargo shuttles (i.e. SpaceX Starship) that make production recovery return trips.
For th next step of the project and future recommandations, I would make another question as :
“How will we create sustainable ways to make space travel even more affordable but most importantly, more sustainable ?”
Raise your eyes to the vast, wide sky and when you lower them you'll be able to rediscover the luxuriant vegetation of a planet that's coming back to life.
You can create a new topic in the form below.
In order to fit with the sustainable milestones of the city of the Future, the production and manufacture for future factories must support sustainability principles and have out-of-the-box thinking. Based on that and on the former inspiring answer of Clémence DELATTRE, I will try to give another direction for raw material collection.
Where could the big factories be located ? It is an interesting question. As it is often big unappealing buildings, no-one would want them near by their houses. However, if we want to reduce the size of the cities, factories would be near schools, churches, parks which is not socially sustainable.
From solutions to other problems emerged (as the use of space or the energy), space could be a solution for the complete delocalisation of the manufacturing process.
Imagine a world where the construction of your household appliances, coffee makers, computers and bicycles no longer pollutes. According to experts, between 10 and 22% of the total greenhouse gaz emitted come from that industry. What's more, if we extrapolate downwards that without manufacturing, a third of transport-related pollution would also disappear, this would mean that, on average and depending on the source, around 40% of total CEO and greenhouse gas emissions would disappear from our daily lives, probably helping some Asian cities to live without masks.
The obvious answer every reader will get when they arrive here is: But the rockets will be much worse than that in terms of pollution?
Today, the answer is certainly valid. However, if we look at the price/kg curves sent into space (table 1 in the appendix), this cost has been completely broken, which can be smoothed out as a 5.5% annual reduction. It is clear that the cost of launching into low Earth orbit (LEO) is one of the key factors in the long-term success of this type of objective.
If we look at SpaceX's recent successes, which were repeated in mid-January 2025 (https://x.com/teslaownersSV/status/1881075912281882635), we are currently passing a milestone in terms of material recovery and therefore a concrete reduction in the costs involved (plus if we add the environmental savings of not having to remanufacture these parts, which are very expensive and difficult to design).
Another issue that will have to be addressed is energy. Rockets powered by Ergol or other combustion-based fuels are bound to pollute. However, a study by ‘Le Monde’ in 2023 shows that the share of space pollution in total transport pollution is still tiny. It should be made clear, however, that the more the number of flights increases (which is the case), the greater the risk that this share will also increase.
Many players (ESA, SpaceX and Japan's national space agency, JAXA) are investing in and actively seeking solutions to reduce the environmental costs of take-offs.
Researchers are looking for solutions in two directions:
-Making a more efficient rocket that requires less fuel
-Making a cleaner fuel that pollutes the environment less.
By researching the two issues simultaneously, it is possible to improve on all the current problems. Even if an electric rocket would be utopian because of the battery requirements and the current need for combustion to escape the gravity of the blue planet, it is interesting to ask whether electrification could be useful when leaving Earth orbit.
Lastly (before dwelling on the benefits of this proposed answer), it's worth looking at the conditions for space manufacture:
The Moon could be an interesting place. Despite its lower gravity, it has gravity and would allow our facilities to stay where we put them. However, the risk associated with flying stars that regularly crash into the Earth's sattelite would force us to make strict siting choices. Incidental radioactive bombardment from the sun would also be a major threat. Settling in caves or at the bottom of craters could be an interesting solution.
On the other hand, there's our Earth orbit. If we solve the Kessler problem, which is hanging over our heads a little more every year, it could be a perfect place for our factories. Still above LEO, full of sattelites, Geostationary orbit (GEO) could be the ideal place. Keeping the orbit and therefore security and having lots of space. Here again, there are problems of solar radiation, but we'll be closer to our planet to bring back manufactured materials.
Now let's talk about outcomes.
How do you bring them back?
As the Kurzgesagt video explains, if our space factories send back locally-manufactured ‘pods’ containing the resources they've obtained, all we have to do is collect them from down below.
The benefits of this expansion could be substantial:
In terms of mineral resources, the asteroids contain more ore than we've ever seen before, and the Moon is home to large quantities of Helium-3, an isotope of Helium that could be the key to nuclear fusion and therefore to clean, almost infinite energy.
On the other hand, it might be conceivable to send agriculture up there, in huge space farms, as Clémence mentioned with seaweeds or coconuts.
With the possible economic explosion of the space sector and the drastic and incremental improvement of our means of transport, it would be possible to have cargo shuttles (i.e. SpaceX Starship) that make production recovery return trips.
For th next step of the project and future recommandations, I would make another question as :
“How will we create sustainable ways to make space travel even more affordable but most importantly, more sustainable ?”
Raise your eyes to the vast, wide sky and when you lower them you'll be able to rediscover the luxuriant vegetation of a planet that's coming back to life.
References :
Le Monde, (2023, December 8). Comment ArianeGroup cherche à réduire ses émissions carbone. Le Monde.fr; Le Monde. https://www.lemonde.fr/economie/article/2023/12/08/comment-arianegroup-cherche-a-reduire-ses-emissions-carbone_6204599_3234.html#:~:text=Globalement%2C%20les%20lanceurs%20de%20la,'auteur%20de%20l'ouvrage.
Youtube (2021) Unlimited Resources From Space – Asteroid Mining. Kurzgesagt – In a Nutshell. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8XvQNt26KI