Asteroid mining? Google billionaires, James Cameron, & "Planetary Resources, Inc"

[NEOWatcher]

I see no reason why an upgraded sample return spacecraft would have to cost that much.

Is there anything you base that reasoning on?
Because; I see lots of reasons, although I can't pin any numbers on it to estimate a cost.

The closest analogy we have at the moment is Hayabusa which only returned "100 particles" (per wiki). It contained other scientific experiments, so let me use the estimate of Hayabusa-2 which may be lower because of improved or cheaper technology learned from experience. $200M
So; how much can your upgraded spacecraft actually return?
How much can you scale up the mission for a bigger return?
How much would that scaling up cost?

Right now, it's been a sample return. How can we change that to a resource return?
Without specialized equipment to extract the valuable stuff, all you are going to get is a random sample with only a percentage of valuable stuff. Zeroing in on a location rich in the valuable stuff helps, but it's still going to only be a sample.

[djellison]

I see no reason why an upgraded sample return spacecraft would have to cost that much.

You mean something like OSIRIS-REX?

[Ara Pacis]

you should ask the investors mentioned in the OP. However, I'll attempt to answer your specific questions to my general statement with more general statements because I'm not part of the investors group or privy to their counsels.

Mining of what?

Either whatever they find or whatever they want, ldo.

What is it that can be collected from asteroids that renders the exercise economically viable?

Data and material that is more costly to transport from earth or impossible to obtain from earth.

What sort of infrastructure would you require - are you refining/smelting/processing material in space?

If they want to perform those processes, then yes.

Have you seen the engineering facilities required to do that?

Yes. Not only am I addicted to "How It's Made", I also worked in a factory at one time.

Now do it in zero G.

Ok. And if it doesn't work in zero g, we'll add some g.

Now how are you getting it home?

Some sort of rocket, I'd assume. Where is "home"? Market and home may not be the same place.

There's not market for it in space.

Not yet. Well, there is, but there's not any real way to service that market at present. Space assets whose owners might purchase such materials/services would need to make assets that can be serviced in that fashion.

Or are you intending to build things with it in space?

I don't know what they are intending to do, but I would build a big, honking space station.

Now scale up your infrastructure a couple of orders of magnitude.

Why? I , and I assume they, would only make it as big as it needs to be.

Artificially inflating prices of terrestrial mining is totally untenable economically & politically. (consider the environmental impact of all the R&D and then manufacture and launch of a space based mining operation - your environmental argument has no merit that I can see).

You've got it backwards. Future prices wouldn't be inflated, they'd be an accurate representation of the Total Cost of Ownership. Current prices are deflated, subsidized by governments. A lot of resource extraction and manufacturing on earth create harms on the environment and on people and on the economy. For example, how much land needs to be contaminated and how many people do you need to die, be injured or displaced by a tailings dam failures before you'll pay more for your goods? If you think it'll be politically untenable in the future, look at how many conflicts there are right now! And I don't just mean hot wars, but civil disobedience and intergovernmental bickering.

Commercially viable mining on an asteroid? In the next quarter century?

As if it's commercially viable on earth?

LOLZ.

It's lulz.

Almost as silly as space based solar power IMHO. not quite, but almost.

It might be useful for space, but for earth, I agree, not as useful.

[TheBrett]

If they're calling it a "new kind of natural resource", then it's probably something other than asteroid mining. I'm thinking it might be a space-based solar power experiment, or perhaps some type of new satellite designed to give them much better relay of data than existing communication satellites.

[NEOWatcher]

... or perhaps some type of new satellite designed to give them much better relay of data than existing communication satellites.

IPPS (Interplanetary positioning system)

[Ilya]

If this is going to involve manned mining missions to asteroids, someone better invent artificial gravity because prolonged exposure in zero gravity, as most of you know, will lead to muscle breakdown.

Define "prolonged". People had stayed on Russian space stations for a year and more.

[publiusr]

I wonder if the rotation of asteroids might be enhanced-at least the more solid ones. I keep thinking about an asteroid bola, where a cable can cut an asteroid as was done with Kursk (hollow and easier to do, I know). Then the rotation can be used to release a goodly hunk in our direction. Rubble pile asteroids could have hunks placed in mass produced Baggies that a ballutes, containers with small thrusters and a good sized chute--not so much for soft landing, but enough to slow it down. All processing takes place on Earth, so you don't have to loft a whole factory up there.

The trick is not spooking the public in placing one in orbit around the Earth. Perhaps by hitting near a future moonbase at a shallow angle to be recovered. If you have to have major facilities, then the flyby rotovator might be useful. Unlike a space elevator, a tether on an asteroid only has to be used once to lift something heavy off the Earth--or have some type of water anchor it drags in the ocean to change direction.

Let's forget gravity tractors fo a moment. How can the energy of a passing asteroid be used to lift items or change its orbit.

If the asteroid is small enough, the whole thing can be brought down if you launch a massive enough light-bulb like ballute. It will still slam into the ocean--but if we can foam the ballute up--it will float in water and be dragged to shore by a large ship. The ballute will act like a buoy...

For now, there is this
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/...national-crew/
http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=14441

Please contact media@planetaryresources.com for more information
http://www.planetaryresources.com/
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/ind...?topic=28675.0

Sea Dragon could place a big station in orbit in one shot. Perhaps 16 Psyche could be a destination--for rich metals.
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread....er-parent-body

[djellison]

I would build a big, honking space station.

The price for those starts at around $100B and take about a quarter century to build. Good luck.

Current prices are deflated, subsidized by governments.

Tell me what it is that exists in space that we can't find on earth (even at twice the current price) and put into LEO if necessary for significantly less that an in-space mining operation would cost?

It's lulz.

Not if you're reading Texts from Hillary it isn't.

[Van Rijn]

This is interesting. Ars Technica has an article on asteroid mining that links to an interesting paper on a proposed mission:

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/...it-by-2025.ars

Here's the PDF of the study they were referring to:

http://kiss.caltech.edu/study/astero...nal_report.pdf

The paper discusses the construction of an ion thruster spacecraft designed to capture and return a very small asteroid to high lunar orbit. Quoting:

The feasibility of an asteroid retrieval mission hinges on finding an overlap between the smallest NEAs that could be reasonably discovered and characterizedand the largest NEAs that could be captured and transported in a reasonable flight time. This overlap appears to be centered on NEAs roughly 7 m in diameter corresponding to masses in the range of 250,000 kg to 1,000,000 kg. To put this in perspective, the Apollo program returned 382 kg of Moon rocks in six missions and the OSIRIS-REx mission proposes to return at least 60 grams of surface material from a NEA by 2023. The present study indicates that it would be possible to return a ~500,000-kg NEA to high lunar orbit by around 2025.
[...]
It [a report] suggests that with the right ground-based observation campaign approximately five attractive targets per year could be discovered and adequately characterized. The report also provides a conceptual design of a flight system with the capability to rendezvous with a NEA in deep space, perform in situ characterization of the object and subsequently capture it, de-spin it, and transport it to lunar orbit in a total flight time of 6 to 10 years. The transportation capability would be enabled by a ~40-kW solar electric propulsion system with a specific impulse of 3,000 s. Significantly, the entire flight system could be launched to low-Earth orbit on a single Atlas V-class launch vehicle. With an initial mass to low-Earth orbit (IMLEO) of 18,000 kg, the subsequent delivery of a 500-t asteroid to lunar orbit represents a mass amplification factor of about 28-to-1. [...] The NASA GRC COMPASS team estimated the full life-cycle cost of an asteroid capture and return mission at ~$2.6B.

(emphasis added) So that covers how to get a small asteroid. For a commercial operation, they would also have to plan on how to process the asteroid after retrieval, but I think this makes it clear that starting asteroid mining does not require a hundred billion dollar superproject.

[publiusr]

Ideally you want something metal rich. So how much would stoneys or carbo-conds get you? I want to know where that 1972 Teton bolide went. It was supposed to do a resonant return in the 1990s. The way that thing held together for 1500 km before skipping out to space--you'd think it would have had to have been a big slug of metal. I want to know where that thing is--assuming it survived.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_D..._1972_Fireball

[Van Rijn]

If they're calling it a "new kind of natural resource", then it's probably something other than asteroid mining. I'm thinking it might be a space-based solar power experiment, or perhaps some type of new satellite designed to give them much better relay of data than existing communication satellites.

But as I pointed out before, that doesn't require space exploration, which they specifically mentioned.

[djellison]

, but I think this makes it clear that starting asteroid mining does not require a hundred billion dollar superproject.

So - you've got 500 tons of in high lunar orbit for $2.6B

It's cost you $5200/kg to put it there.

Now what?

0.3% of it might be Platinum, that's 1,500kg. So if that's useful - it cost you $1.7M/kg ( 30x market value ) and of course, buyer collects, from high lunar orbit.

Someone explain to me where the market is here.


For $2.6B - you could buy 50,000kg of platinum right here on Earth and have enough cash left to launch it on a Falcon Heavy into LEO.

That Caltech paper is fascinating, exciting, interesting....but it's got next to nothing to do with a viable mining scheme.

[publiusr]

I think the idea is to not have to mine it on the Earth--and all the mining waste and run-off. Mine it in space and leave the mountain-tops in place, so as to not turn our surface into a moonscape. That's more than worth the effort. Getting the technical know-how to use when richer objects present themselves--then we will be ready.

Spaceflight is more TVA than MSN still. So be it.

[djellison]

I'm fairly sure mining companies on Earth could leave the landscape in better condition that when they started, and still be an order of magnitude cheaper than anything collected from BEO.

And you are ignoring the carbon (and other environmental) footprints of designing, building, testing, launching and operating the spacecraft that goes and get it.

Is there any evidence that mining is about to turn the world into a moonscape?

Many mines look like utter hell holes - but they represent a tiny tiny fraction of the Earths surface. I'd argue that more of the earths surface is covered in freeways and roads, than is scared via mining.

If you're going to refine it into usable finished product in space - you're talking about an enormous infrastructure that would make the ISS look like a hobby project. If you're going to refine it on earth, you've still got significant environmental impact of smelting etc.

I see no sound environmental or economical case for mining in space at this time.

[Van Rijn]

So - you've got 500 tons of in high lunar orbit for $2.6B

It's cost you $5200/kg to put it there.

Maybe if you only do one mission, ever. For a commercial venture, I'd expect they'd design for reusability, and if more than one spacecraft is built, R&D costs can be spread out between them. I also suspect they could do it for lower cost than this estimate.

Someone explain to me where the market is here.

I'd expect the early market would be material and consumables for in-space use, and people who wanted a piece of an asteroid. By starting small scale, they don't need a huge market.

That Caltech paper is fascinating, exciting, interesting....but it's got next to nothing to do with a viable mining scheme.

I think you're going to be surprised.

[ravens_cry]

I'd expect the early marketwould be material and consumables for in-space use, and people who wanted a piece of an asteroid. By starting small scale, they don't need a huge market.

Heck, I see this being the primary market for quite some time.

[Van Rijn]

Heck, I see this being the primary market for quite some time.

Possibly. After proof of concept, though, it could open interest for bigger projects and moving into larger markets. And, of course, we don't actually know what these folks are planning.

By the way, I left out a line of the section I quoted from the PDF article for brevity that in hindsight I probably should have left in:

Longer flight times, higher power SEP systems, or a target asteroid in a particularly favorable orbit could increase the mass amplification factor from 28-to-1 to 70-to-1 or greater.

Showing the 28-to-1 mass return is probably very much on the conservative side.

[ravens_cry]

Possibly. After proof of concept, though, it could open interest for bigger projects and moving into larger markets. And, of course, we don't actually know what these folks are planning.

Eventually yes, I would love to stop pillaging Earth, plundering at the expense of our fellow travellers, marring and scarring, but high launch costs make that difficult to be competitive, while high launch costs make space material for space use attractive once you set up the relevant infrastructure.

[djellison]

I'd expect the early market would be material and consumables for in-space use, and people who wanted a piece of an asteroid. By starting small scale, they don't need a huge market.

Let's be massively optimistic and say that they can do that same mission for 1/5th the cost in the not too distant future ( totally unrealistic, but anyway ) and lets say you can do it with an asteroid that's twice as big.

You're still costing 3x more than terrestrial resources - and for things like Platinum, putting into space costs <1/10th of the material cost itself.

If people are going to 'use' materials in space - they need to be refined, purified, machined, tested, qualified.....where's your infrastructure to do that?

What are you expecting people to actually use it for? If people want 'a piece' of that asteroid - they've still got to go to high lunar orbit to get it - that's a massive, expensive mission all on its own.

Nothing you've said brings this idea any closer to being fiscally viable.

I also suspect they could do it for lower cost than this estimate.

Never has a space project of this magnitude cost less than initially forecast. Never.

I think you're going to be surprised.

I think you're going to be disappointed.

[ravens_cry]

If people are going to 'use' materials in space - they need to be refined, purified, machined, tested, qualified.....where's your infrastructure to do that?

Every activity requires infrastructure. So far for space, this has been at the bottom of deep gravity well, practically the worst place in the solar system for it.

[publiusr]

Just having an asteroid in orbit would be nice. Not as far to travel--maybe an anchor for a space elevator. Having the resources for that to build a solar sail that can move to a bigger asteroid--which would be moved over time to work your way up. It might have been cheaper for Columbus to stay at home too--but where is the point in that? Knowing how to move things around in space may result in a pay-off that can't be calculated in just the cost of raw materials.

And to compare testing of rockets with strip mines or smelters that can at least have exhaust products filtered--that's stretching it a bit isn't it?

[ravens_cry]

It's going to have to be a nice high orbit, no one wants this to come down to the ground in an uncontrolled fashion.

[Paul Wally]

I think that on site mining, processing and perhaps manufacturing, is more economical than to transport raw materials to Earth. By increasing
the value/kg of a commodity on site it then starts to become feasible when this starts to exceed the cost of transportation/kg. This may be economically
possible with sufficiently advanced robotics ... maybe mining droids?

[ravens_cry]

I think that on site mining, processing and perhaps manufacturing, is more economical than to transport raw materials to Earth. By increasing
the value/kg of a commodity on site it then starts to become feasible when this starts to exceed the cost of transportation/kg. This may be economically
possible with sufficiently advanced robotics ... maybe mining droids?

Yeah, that's what I am imagining as well, what I am arguing for.
If you can keep it in high Earth orbit, telepresence would work, with perhaps a few humans on site for oversight and repair.

[djellison]

And to compare testing of rockets with strip mines or smelters that can at least have exhaust products filtered--that's stretching it a bit isn't it?

I didn't say testing. I said design, build, test, launch and operation.

Let's use the Apollo analogy. 400,000 people working on a program. What is the carbon footprint of those 400,000 people. Their cars. Their offices. Their tooling being made, their facilities being built, the resources being made etc etc.

Going to get materials from an asteroid is a non-zero environmental impact of itself.

The environmental case for off-earth mining is a total non starter in my opinion. Especially when the only detailed example brought into this threads results in putting material in a high lunar orbit for 30x the cost of a perfectly refined material right here on Earth.

For all those who think this is a great idea - I have a question.

By when do you think someone will be mining an asteroid, and producing a usable material to build infrastructure/spacecraft etc etc.

I'm 33. I don't see it happening in my life time.

[marsbug]

What about a small asteroid as a paid-for scientific resource? Theres a lot of interest in small body misions at the moment. If a small carbanaceous chondrite were placed in an accesable orbit could you charge enough for acess to it to turn a profit, whilst still keeping the cost to the customers low enough that they would be saving money over a dedicated mission such as hayabusa? I'm assuming the customers would be major universities and national space exploraton agencies. Bare in mind that a tame CC asteroid would be a long term resource for science, as opposed to a mission which is fixed duration, so perhaps the cost could be made back over many years of charged acess and the real goal would be kudos for those involved?

Is there also the possibility that the asteroid moving technology could be sold to military as a kinetic energy based weapon?

Other than that my best guess is that niche market for space based solar power - something where the benefits of getting a modest amount of power very quickly to a hard to reach location are overwhelmingly important, not a means of mass producing energy.

[marsbug]

To expand on the 'science for profit' possibility: some small asteroids are thought to enter temporary orbit about Earth. Perhaps such an easy target might be easy enough to reach and guide that selling acess to it to scientific institutions could turn a net profit?

I have no numbers, I'm just handwaving, feel free to shoot this down.

[marsbug]

One last idea before bed:Is there enough current use for antimatter to make it worth collecting it out of Earths magnetic field?

[djellison]

What about a small asteroid as a paid-for scientific resource? Theres a lot of interest in small body misions at the moment.

There's also a slash straight thru the planetary science budget. We have another small body mission being put together right now ( OSIRIS-REX ) and another (CHOPPER ) as a Discovery finalist.

If a small carbanaceous chondrite were placed in an accesable orbit could you charge enough for acess to it to turn a profit, whilst still keeping the cost to the customers low enough that they would be saving money over a dedicated mission such as hayabusa? I'm assuming the customers would be major universities and national space exploraton agencies. Bare in mind that a tame CC asteroid would be a long term resource for science, as opposed to a mission which is fixed duration, so perhaps the cost could be made back over many years of charged acess and the real goal would be kudos for those involved?

How much more do we learn from having the whole thing to look at time and again, compared to OSIRIS-REX, which will document the body in huge detail and bring enough samples back for the whole scientific community? You would still need to conduct missions the scale of OSIRIS-REX to go get pieces of it once you had put it into high lunar orbit. Why make things more expensive and complex. It doesn't add up.

Is there also the possibility that the asteroid moving technology could be sold to military as a kinetic energy based weapon?

I hope not. HUmans are perfectly well equipped to destroy one another with this added 'technology'.

Other than that my best guess is that niche market for space based solar power - something where the benefits of getting a modest amount of power very quickly to a hard to reach location are overwhelmingly important, not a means of mass producing energy.

Also a non starter. You would need deliver reception equipment on the ground. Save the money for an overly expensive and complex on orbit asset, and just air-drop in-situ power production. What's better - an fleet of $100k insitu power production assets that could be air-dropped to locations as an when needed.....or a multi million/billion on orbit solar complex.....with a fleet of $100k insitu power reception assets that could be air-dropped. Space Based solar power has never and will never make sense.

[aerovoid]

I've been really thinking about what they said in the article about creating a "...new definition of 'natural resources.'" and trying to think what else there is besides mining the Moon or asteroids or mining in general. A thought did cross my mind, but I'm not sure if one could call it a 'natural resource', but what about cleaning up and collecting "space junk"? Either retrieving it and bringing it back to Earth or at the very least, keeping it collected together in a stable orbit and out of the way of important things like the ISS, other spacecraft and operational satellites, etc.

I'm not sure if there is much profit in that either though.