Asteroid mining

Originally posted by WoodPush
Is it really as lucrative as implied here? Space travel isn't exactly cheap. Is it even feasible?

http://news.yahoo.com/asteroid-mining-venture-backed-google-execs-james-cameron-011205183.html

It's feasible if you decide to live on the asteroid, otherwise I think not.

Originally posted by Soothfast
It's feasible if you decide to live on the asteroid, otherwise I think not.

I thought the consensus was to use robots, which would pretty much preclude living on an asteroid. No food supplies, O2, H20, medical supplies, clothing, feces disposal, etc.

Originally posted by sonhouse
I thought the consensus was to use robots, which would pretty much preclude living on an asteroid. No food supplies, O2, H20, medical supplies, clothing, feces disposal, etc.

Actually there are huge supplies of H2O and thus H2 and O2 on the asteroid because it
contains large quantities of ice.

Ice plus solar power = water, hydrogen and oxygen in whatever quantities you want.

Which makes them fantastic refuelling depots and also means that you don't have to ferry
the fuel/propellent to shift them you can mine it when you get there.

Originally posted by sonhouse
I thought the consensus was to use robots, which would pretty much preclude living on an asteroid. No food supplies, O2, H20, medical supplies, clothing, feces disposal, etc.

Asteroid mining certainly would make sense on every level to build and maintain a colony on, say, Mars or Europa. In the case of Mars I'd consider Phobos or Deimos, which are just captured asteroids.

As for Earth, future developments in terrestrial (or oceanic) mining technology is likely always going to stay ahead of extraterrestrial mining economically. Also technology in general is likely going to evolve to rely less on rare and exotic elements and increasingly use common elements like carbon and silicon.

Originally posted by Soothfast
Asteroid mining certainly would make sense on every level to build and maintain a colony on, say, Mars or Europa. In the case of Mars I'd consider Phobos or Deimos, which are just captured asteroids.

As for Earth, future developments in terrestrial (or oceanic) mining technology is likely always going to stay ahead of extraterrestrial mining economical ...[text shortened]... less on rare and exotic elements and increasingly use common elements like carbon and silicon.

As for Earth, future developments in terrestrial (or oceanic) mining technology is likely
always going to stay ahead of extraterrestrial mining economically.

Why? How do you know?

A single small asteroid contains more valuable rare ore than we have mined in our entire history
and their are tens of thousands of the things.

The high cost of getting into space is more than compensated for by the super concentrated nature
of the ore.

And many of the costs get reduced once you start mining because you can build and supply your mining
infrastructure out of asteroid materials and no longer have to pay launch costs.

Also technology in general is likely going to evolve to rely less on rare and exotic elements and
increasingly use common elements like carbon and silicon.

Again, How do you know?

Certainly people are trying to make stuff out of cheep easily available materials... But that doesn't mean that
they will succeed.

The laws of physics might well say that for some applications you need these rare elements and there is just
no getting around it.

And even if we do eventually move to building everything out of abundant light elements that doesn't mean it
will happen soon enough that they wont be able to turn a few tens of trillions of profit out of asteroid mining.

Eventually we will move away from using fossil fuels, if for no other reason than they will soon run out, but people
have made countless billions mining selling them in the meantime.

Asteroid mining certainly would make sense on every level to build and maintain a colony on, say, Mars or Europa.
In the case of Mars I'd consider Phobos or Deimos, which are just captured asteroids.

Why build on Mars or Europa at all?

Why not build your colonies in space in habitats built from asteroids in whatever orbit you like with whatever day length and
rotationally simulated gravity you like and without all the fuss and bother of being stuck down a gravity well?

Originally posted by googlefudge

As for Earth, future developments in terrestrial (or oceanic) mining technology is likely
always going to stay ahead of extraterrestrial mining economically.

Why? How do you know?

A single small asteroid contains more valuable rare ore than we have mined in our entire history
and their are tens of thousands of the things.

The ...[text shortened]... ated gravity you like and without all the fuss and bother of being stuck down a gravity well?

If there's one thing the past 50 years should have taught us, it's that scientists and engineers consistently underestimate the challenges and expense of space ventures by an order of magnitude. A self-sustaining robotic mining facility on an asteroid tens of millions of kilometers away? That's stuff for the mid to late 22nd century, at best.

Originally posted by Soothfast
If there's one thing the past 50 years should have taught us, it's that scientists and engineers consistently underestimate the challenges and expense of space ventures by an order of magnitude.

It has also taught us that if we want to do it, we can.

Originally posted by Soothfast
If there's one thing the past 50 years should have taught us, it's that scientists and engineers consistently underestimate the challenges and expense of space ventures by an order of magnitude. A self-sustaining robotic mining facility on an asteroid tens of millions of kilometers away? That's stuff for the mid to late 22nd century, at best.

Typical space missions currently cost in the hundreds of millions to few billion range.

the most expensive cost of the order of a few tens of billions.

Assuming that for some unknown reason this mission is an order of magnitude more
expensive than the most expensive missions to date (which is ridiculous) that puts it
in the few hundred billion dollar range.

A single asteroid contains TRILLIONS of dollars worth of ore.

Which means it's still profitable even if you make it an order of magnitude more expensive
than the most expensive missions we currently undertake.

And barring in mind that the most expensive missions are the ones that launch humans and
that currently private industry is going great leaps forward in reducing costs.


The guys that are getting together to do this are certainly and knowingly taking a risk.

But they are taking a calculated one.

This is doable with present day technology, it's basically an engineering problem rather than a
physics problem.

Now of course with more advanced 'future' technology this will become easier and cheaper, but
we will only develop that technology by actually going out and experimenting and finding a need
for it.

With modern computing power, tested and reliable ion drive propulsion, modern robotics, and enough
time and man hours this is eminently doable.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Typical space missions currently cost in the hundreds of millions to few billion range.

the most expensive cost of the order of a few tens of billions.

Assuming that for some unknown reason this mission is an order of magnitude more
expensive than the most expensive missions to date (which is ridiculous) that puts it
in the few hundred billion ...[text shortened]... drive propulsion, modern robotics, and enough
time and man hours this is eminently doable.

One thing I can see: If we get cheap platinum, it would change things here on Earth by allowing a hydrogen economy to work, platinum is a great catalyst, much better than almost any other and is used to split H2 and O2 out of water with minimum energy. I see work done on others like Nickel moly catalysts but platinum is still better.

So if we got platinum down to 20 bucks a Kg like Nickel, it would change a lot of technologies.

Originally posted by twhitehead
It has also taught us that if we want to do it, we can.

But only if there's an Enemy who might do it first to score geopolitical brownie points.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Typical space missions currently cost in the hundreds of millions to few billion range.

the most expensive cost of the order of a few tens of billions.

Assuming that for some unknown reason this mission is an order of magnitude more
expensive than the most expensive missions to date (which is ridiculous) that puts it
in the few hundred billion drive propulsion, modern robotics, and enough
time and man hours this is eminently doable.

Uh huh. What kind of timeline are you talking about here, anyway? The next twenty or thirty years? I still say asteroid mining can't be an economically profitable venture for at least a century, and likely longer. And if you don't think it will cost at least a couple trillions of dollars to set up a mining facility that gives more than it takes on some asteroid somewhere, then you've been reading too many Popular Mechanics magazines.

Seriously, I think it would prove cheaper by far to set up a robotic mining facility inside a volcano, or the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. I'm sure asteroid mining's time will come someday, like when we start building ships to explore other star systems.

Originally posted by Soothfast
But only if there's an Enemy who might do it first to score geopolitical brownie points.

So if there is enough motivation it can be done. For the first man in space or on the moon there was because of political motivation. Many satellites around earth however are there because of commercial motivation. Many of the science missions are motivated by scientists and other interested parties (and are often not particularly political).

Originally posted by Soothfast
I still say asteroid mining can't be an economically profitable venture for at least a century, and likely longer.

But why? What are the figures that don't add up for you? All you have said so far is that space programs are over budget. So are many terrestrial mines.

Originally posted by Soothfast
Uh huh. What kind of timeline are you talking about here, anyway? The next twenty or thirty years? I still say asteroid mining can't be an economically profitable venture for at least a century, and likely longer. And if you don't think it will cost at least a couple trillions of dollars to set up a mining facility that gives more than it takes on so ...[text shortened]... 's time will come someday, like when we start building ships to explore other star systems.

Based on what?

Your personal incredible insight into the space industry and the future that means you magically
know more about this than me, and more importantly the collection of pretty smart and savvy
guys who are planning to do this and who think it is possible to do this now after looking at all
this in detail...

If you want to convince me that you are correct and that this isn't possible this century you need
to present some reasons as for why and not just 'I don't think this is possible'.

Because there have been people who have said that every new venture mankind has embarked on
wasn't possible until we went ahead and did it.


For example if you look at the massively over budget and incompetently run space shuttle program
that cost in total around $192 Billion or about $1.5 Billion per launch.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_program#Budget

Given the advances in technology since then, and the fact that these guys are designing their space
craft for one specific purpose and not trying to design something that can do everything and the
fact that they are planning robotic missions not manned ones which are in general vastly cheaper I
have trouble seeing how you can just assert that an asteroid mining mission would cost trillions to
set up.

Heck the ISS has totalled at only $150 Billion (including the 36 shuttle launches)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Space_Station#Program_cost_in_United_States_dollars


So what is it that makes you think sending robotic space craft to an asteroid (something that has
already been done btw) and then using those robots to move and mine that asteroid would be so
vastly expensive, particularly at a time when there are a host of new commercial launchers about to
go into operation that are cheaper and more reliable than the launchers used in the past?

Originally posted by googlefudge
Based on what?

Your personal incredible insight into the space industry and the future that means you magically
know more about this than me, and more importantly the collection of pretty smart and savvy
guys who are planning to do this and who think it is possible to do this now after looking at all
this in detail...

If you want to convince ...[text shortened]...
go into operation that are cheaper and more reliable than the launchers used in the past?

You want an itemized bill? I can't supply one. I'm just guessing at the $2,000 billion price tag based on what all needs to be set up. Sending a robotic probe to an asteroid to take some pictures is one thing, but sending a platoon of robots to actually dig into an asteroid and mine ore, along with all the tools and equipment that'll have to go with it all, along with the inevitable mishaps and breakdowns, along with the shuttle system that will have to ferry ore and equipment back and forth between Earth and the asteroid -- I don't know, man, I just see a lot of technical challenges.

I agree that it is an engineering problem and not a physics one, which is to say it can be done. But the capital outlay will be tremendous, and maintenance of the venture will be intensive. I'd love to be wrong here, but things that look great on paper usually require a lot more headwork and hardware than initially thought. It's still a great accomplishment to get a probe sent to Mars to sample some dirt without something breaking down or going wrong.

Go read some of the writings of the old futurist utopians of the Sixties or even the Eighties. A lot of them were renowned physicists or engineers, and they foresaw humanity being a lot farther ahead in space exploration, colonization, and exploitation than we actually are in the year 2012. They had all these grand ideas of using new technologies to do gee-whiz things for pennies on the dollar. Why haven't they panned out? Because there's reality, and then there's Fantasyland. I'm not saying they were wrong, but the issue here is the timeline. What you may think is feasible in 30 years I say will take more like 100 years -- IF by "feasible" we mean commercially profitable.

You might be getting the idea that I'm opposed to space exploration and such, but that's not the case. I think the US should cut military spending in half and increase funding for space exploration by tenfold. I'll be among the first to defend the Apollo program and the ISS against their detractors by pointing to the innumerable spinoff technologies that those endeavors have (or will) produce in seemingly unrelated areas such as medicine (MRI scanners) and optics (scratch-resistant lenses). But if a bunch of privateers come forward today and say they can make a buck off of asteroids before I'm old enough to retire, I'm going to have to see it to believe it. If you have stock in the company then I wish you the best of luck.