"Mining the Sky" for Earth?

[Moontanman]

you guys take all the fun out of being a half wit, i think I'll take my fantasies and go home... no wait the nuclear option... I think i'll take that one with me too before you ruin it...

[Phi for All]

I don't know why there's so much objection to using space-mined ores for space-based operations. Are we still pirates that have to bring the plunder home? Or is it like the AGW issue where we don't want to be the problem so we can continue doing what we've been doing? It's dangerous to think we can supply ourselves from an unlimited system goldmine. We've got to stop thinking we don't need to be more frugal with our resources.

 

For the time being, I think we need to consider planetary resources are the only ones we're likely to have for use on this planet. Space mining should be used to build more opportunities for space exploration.

[D H]

you guys take all the fun out of being a half wit, i think I'll take my fantasies and go home... no wait the nuclear option... I think i'll take that one with me too before you ruin it...

Sorry, the Fukushima disaster already took that option away from you. The three big nuclear power plant disasters, Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukushima, have collectively spelled the end of the nuclear power industry. The industry was at best moribund prior to Fukushima. Now its dead.

 

We humans aren't rational.

 

Nuclear power is safe, far safer than any other form of electrical power generation -- even if you include those anomalous and curable disasters in the equation. Coal power plants kill coal miners by the thousands and are extremely hazardous to the environment. Hydropower has had a number of disasters that have killed more people than have been killed by the nuclear power industry, and hydropower is not near as green as most people think.

[Moontanman]

 

Sorry, the Fukushima disaster already took that option away from you. The three big nuclear power plant disasters, Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukushima, have collectively spelled the end of the nuclear power industry. The industry was at best moribund prior to Fukushima. Now its dead.

 

I hope you're wrong... I also hope I win the lotto... Gaseous core nuclear light bulbs rule!

 

 

We humans aren't rational.

 

Nuclear power is safe, far safer than any other form of electrical power generation -- even if you include those anomalous and curable disasters in the equation. Coal power plants kill coal miners by the thousands and are extremely hazardous to the environment. Hydropower has had a number of disasters that have killed more people than have been killed by the nuclear power industry, and hydropower is not near as green as most people think.

 

 

I agree, I live near a nuclear power plant and a coal fired power plant, I've never seen protesters at the coal fired site enough it can be shown that the coal powered site releases literally orders of magnitude more radioactivity than a nuclear power plant, i actually walked up to a group of protesters one day and asked them why... the look of "wut?" was a classic...

Edited February 12, 2013 by Moontanman

[D H]

Are we still pirates that have to bring the plunder home?

 

Ultimately, yes, we are.

 

 

It's dangerous to think we can supply ourselves from an unlimited system goldmine.

 

Why? I'd say it's more dangerous to think that our children's children's children will have to get by on a lot less than we have. We should be looking for ways to make the world of those future generations an even brighter and better world than ours.

 

 

We've got to stop thinking we don't need to be more frugal with our resources.

 

You are presenting a false dilemma. Yes, as we marshal ever more power we do have to be ever more careful of the consequences. "With great power comes great responsibility." When we have an exawatt on our hands we will have to be even more responsible shepherding that than we are now.

 

 

For the time being, I think we need to consider planetary resources are the only ones we're likely to have for use on this planet. Space mining should be used to build more opportunities for space exploration.

 

I agree, but not because of the reasons you cited.

 

I agree because that is the path that will eventually let our children's children's children bring the plunder home.

 

Right now, and in the near future, mining asteroids for precious metals to bring home for profit does not add up economically or technologically. Mining asteroids for common stuff, water and methane, comes much, much closer to being technologically feasible and economically viable. It's a matter of picking the low hanging fruit. Water and volatiles are the low hanging fruit. Non-precious metals such as iron and nickel are a bit higher hanging fruit on that plunderable tree of space resources.

 

The key problem with precious metals and rare earths is that they are rare. Plundering those bounties will take a good amount of well-established infrastructure. Our children's children's children will exploit those resources (or so I hope!), but it will take a while to get to the point where doing so is technologically feasible and economically viable.

[Robert Clark]

 

Nonsense.

 

The rocket equation is a nasty, brutal thing. Here's one version: [imath]\Delta v = v_e \ln(m_0/m_1)[/imath], where [imath]\Delta v[/imath] is the change in velocity, [imath]v_e[/imath] is the effective exhaust velocity, [imath]m_0[/imath] is the initial mass of the vehicle, including fuel, and [imath]m_1[/imath] is the final mass (all fuel consumed) of the vehicle. Here's another: [imath]m_f = (m_s+m_p)(\exp(\Delta v/v_e)-1)[/imath], where [imath]m_f[/imath] is the mass of the fuel needed to achieve the desired [imath]\Delta v[/imath] given a payload mass of [imath]m_p[/imath] and a vehicular structural mass of [imath]m_s[/imath].

 

Notice the natural logarithm in the first form, the exponential in the second. Either way, the rocket equation is exponential. Costs are anything but linear with respect to [imath]\Delta v[/imath].

In fact, the rocket equation is worse than exponential. Naively applying the rocket equation quickly leads to a vehicle that is initially 99% or more fuel. We don't know how to build such a vehicle. At some point you need a bigger rocket. That means even more fuel, even more vehicular structure, even more costs.

There's yet another problem that gets in the way, which is the cube square law. Making a rocket whose initial mass is 99% fuel is not a big problem if the rocket is rather small. Make the rocket as a whole bigger and the cube square law demands that that initial fuel load decrease as a percentage as vehicle mass increases. For an extremely large rocket the upper limit on the initial fuel load is closer to 90% than 99%.

 

 

We agree costs are not linear with respect to delta-V. They are approximately linear with respect to the size of the rocket. Try using the rocket equation on a delta-V of 3.1 km/s and and Isp of 450 s. You'll find the mass ratio is about 2. This is how much bigger a rocket has to be to get the same size payload to escape velocity rather than just to LEO.

 

 

Bob Clark

 

SpaceX sells its Falcon 9 for some 80M$ presently. Two more boosters won't make it cheaper, so 32,000kg in Leo would cost >>2500$/kg.

 

Then going from Leo to an asteroid and braking there means >3+3km/s. Even with hydrogen, the instruments put there must be >4 times lighter.

 

After what you must consider the mass of the machines needed to extract a single kg of precious metal. The excavator isn't all: metals must be reduced and separated.

...

 

SpaceX has said the cost for the Falcon Heavy will be in the range of $1,000 per pound, which is ca. $2,000 per kilo. You are aware of the fact that scaling a rocket up should make the costs cheaper, which is why there was support of the idea of a "big dumb booster" to cut the costs to space.

 

I've seen some of your creative ideas for space on this and other forums. Suppose there were a big commercial push for space mining. Then we would need lightweight means of doing the processing of the precious metals. Then how would you do this task: separate out the expensive platinum group metals from the common metals such as iron, nickel, etc. and from the surrounding rock. Keep in mind there is little gravity on the small asteroids. How would you do it?

 

 

Bob Clark

[Phi for All]

Why? I'd say it's more dangerous to think that our children's children's children will have to get by on a lot less than we have. We should be looking for ways to make the world of those future generations an even brighter and better world than ours.

 

Brighter and better doesn't have to mean inefficient or wasteful. Getting by on a lot less doesn't have to mean barely getting by. We can design more efficient ways to stretch what we have here on Earth, we just choose not to until we're forced to.

 

You are presenting a false dilemma. Yes, as we marshal ever more power we do have to be ever more careful of the consequences. "With great power comes great responsibility." When we have an exawatt on our hands we will have to be even more responsible shepherding that than we are now

 

How is it a false dilemma? If people assume that mining space is going to alleviate the immediate need to conserve our resources, isn't it probable that we'll just go on using less efficient processes to our detriment? Certainly there will come a time when the bounty of our system can be brought back to Earth but for the time being I think it would make more sense to assume that offworld resources will be better used offworld.

 

I agree, but not because of the reasons you cited.

 

I agree because that is the path that will eventually let our children's children's children bring the plunder home.

 

Right now, and in the near future, mining asteroids for precious metals to bring home for profit does not add up economically or technologically. Mining asteroids for common stuff, water and methane, comes much, much closer to being technologically feasible and economically viable. It's a matter of picking the low hanging fruit. Water and volatiles are the low hanging fruit. Non-precious metals such as iron and nickel are a bit higher hanging fruit on that plunderable tree of space resources.

 

The key problem with precious metals and rare earths is that they are rare. Plundering those bounties will take a good amount of well-established infrastructure. Our children's children's children will exploit those resources (or so I hope!), but it will take a while to get to the point where doing so is technologically feasible and economically viable.

 

Of course. This has been my argument all along. Right now we need to look at mining asteroids as a more efficient way to continue our work in space, not to resupply our own planet. Eventually, I'm sure that will change as our children's children's children discover ways to make it feasible to bring the plunder all the way home. I hope we leave them something to work with.

[D H]

We agree costs are not linear with respect to delta-V. They are approximately linear with respect to the size of the rocket. Try using the rocket equation on a delta-V of 3.1 km/s and and Isp of 450 s. You'll find the mass ratio is about 2. This is how much bigger a rocket has to be to get the same size payload to escape velocity rather than just to LEO.

 

Try again, but this time

• Don't use an Isp of 450s. That's hydrogen. Nobody uses hydrogen for the upper stages. It doesn't make sense. SpaceX doesn't use hydrogen, period. They know hydrogen as a fuel doesn't make sense, period.
• Take into account that when you increase the size of a rocket you are increasing the size of the rocket. You apparently just doubled the fuel quantity. Rockets don't work that way.

 

SpaceX has said the cost for the Falcon Heavy will be in the range of $1,000 per pound, which is ca. $2,000 per kilo. You are aware of the fact that scaling a rocket up should make the costs cheaper, which is why there was support of the idea of a "big dumb booster" to cut the costs to space.

 

I've seen some of your creative ideas for space on this and other forums. Suppose there were a big commercial push for space mining. Then we would need lightweight means of doing the processing of the precious metals. Then how would you do this task: separate out the expensive platinum group metals from the common metals such as iron, nickel, etc. and from the surrounding rock. Keep in mind there is little gravity on the small asteroids. How would you do it?

 

I wouldn't. Thinking of mining metals in space, any kind of metals, is a pipe dream for now. Thinking of mining precious metals and rare earths is beyond the pipe dream stage. What we can do in the next ten or twenty years (i.e., now) is to mine easily attainable and very common stuff that nonetheless is valuable if used in space. Water. Methane. Water is not just water, it's also a very portable source of oxygen. Methane is an easily managed, non-cryogenic fuel. Mining these two is feasible and economical, or close to it. It's still using some very low TRL concepts, and that will have to be addressed.

[Sam Viknyansky]

This calls into question not only the risks and benefits of asteroid mining (resources used to reach asteroid, costs, etc), but also future prospects beyond asteroids. Isaac Aasimov wrote a short story about a team of Martian space miners who brought a resource more precious than water to their planet; water. They reached a comet, broke it apart, and prepared to take it back. Using thrusters and clamps, they "rode" the captured chunks of comet back. While this seems outlandish, who had a claim to said comet?

 

When we mine here one Earth, we do so under local, national, and international regulations. In space, there is no government, so we would need a set of guidelines and limitations as to who can mine what, in what quantitiy, etc. Capitalism and entrepreneurship are well and good, but if the need for water becomes great in the age of colonization, who gets to say whose comet/asteroid that is?

 

While we can engineer the means of getting the resources, we shouldn't forget about sustainability of our planet, our solar system, and our future generations.

[D H]

In space, there is no government, so we would need a set of guidelines and limitations as to who can mine what, in what quantitiy, etc.

 

That is a key issue that needs to be resolved. Consider the following scenario. Suppose that, contrary to what I posted earlier, Naive Space Mining, Inc. does manage to develop this mythical 2500 kg precious metal mining machine and sends one each to a dozen or so candidate asteroids. Suppose the rocket doesn't have the necessary oomph to bring the mined material back to Earth. The mining machine instead builds up a pile of mined precious metals for later recovery, something to be done a decade or so later. Next suppose Teach Space, LLC (Teach as in Edward Teach, aka Blackbeard) secretly develops a recovery vehicle well in advance of the work by Naive Space Mining, Inc. They send recovery vehicles to all of those mining sites, pick up the precious piles, and come home.

 

Did Teach Space, LLC violate any laws?

 

 

Capitalism and entrepreneurship are well and good, but if the need for water becomes great in the age of colonization, who gets to say whose comet/asteroid that is?

 

That's the "group hug" theory of international space law, and it doesn't make sense. No space faring nation is a signator to the (failed) Moon Treaty, which would have made this "group hug" point of view into international law.

 

The problem is that there is no concept yet of what ownership rights in outer space are, or even what they should be.

[Phi for All]

In space, there is no government, so we would need a set of guidelines and limitations as to who can mine what, in what quantitiy, etc. Capitalism and entrepreneurship are well and good, but if the need for water becomes great in the age of colonization, who gets to say whose comet/asteroid that is?

 

This would be a great opportunity to shamelessly plug for my friends at Secure World Foundation, who are working hard to set up just such international guidelines. For now, their work is focused on satellites and orbital debris but hopefully their efforts could be the framework for future mining efforts.

[Robert Clark]

I don't know why there's so much objection to using space-mined ores for space-based operations. Are we still pirates that have to bring the plunder home? Or is it like the AGW issue where we don't want to be the problem so we can continue doing what we've been doing? It's dangerous to think we can supply ourselves from an unlimited system goldmine. We've got to stop thinking we don't need to be more frugal with our resources.

 

For the time being, I think we need to consider planetary resources are the only ones we're likely to have for use on this planet. Space mining should be used to build more opportunities for space exploration.

Deep Space Industries discusses the in space use of asteroid resources here:

 

A valuable asteroid passing by this week

February 13 2013 05:55:27 AM | by Clark Lindsey, Managing Editor

A message from Deep Space Industries:

 

Coming Asteroid Could Be Worth $195 Billion

(If it were in the right orbit)

McLean, VA February 12 The asteroid making an extremely close pass of Earth this week could be worth up to $195 billion in metals and propellant, if it were in a different orbit, Deep Space Industries (DSI) announced today. Unfortunately, the path of asteroid 2012 DA14 is tilted relative to Earth, requiring too much energy to chase it down for mining.

https://www.newspacewatch.com/articles/a-valuable-asteroid-passing-by-this-week.html

 

Bob Clark

Edited February 14, 2013 by Robert Clark

[D H]

Deep Space Industries discusses the in space use of asteroid resources here:

 

https://www.newspacewatch.com/articles/a-valuable-asteroid-passing-by-this-week.html

Multiplying the quantity of some material obtainable from some source of that material by some unit price does not necessarily mean that that is economic value of that source. That article is false economics at work.

 

By way of analogy, there's a readily accessible supply of gold worth over 41 trillion dollars right here on Earth, the gold that is dissolved in the world's oceans. The reason no one goes after this readily accessible supply is that one would have to process about 77 million liters (20 million gallons) of ocean water to get just one gram of gold. Because of this, the economic value of that supposed 41 trillion dollar supply is zero. Absolutely nothing.

 

The method by which that article arrives at that figure of $195 billion is quite simple: Multiple 130,000 tons by 15% (10% metal, 5% water) to obtain 19,500 tons of recoverable product and multiply that by $10 million per ton. Tada! $195 billion.

 

That's a bogus figure. That 10 million dollars per ton is an intentionally inflated figure. He intentionally used GEO as opposed to LEO because it costs about 10 times more to get a satellite into GEO than it does to get a satellite of the same mass into LEO. (Aside: Note the factor of ten multiplier. LEO to GEO is a delta V of about 4.1 km/s, about 40% of the delta V needed to get from ground to LEO. Cost is a highly non-linear function of delta V.)

 

That $10 million per ton is a cost, a sunk cost. We don't send one 1 ton rock up into geostationary orbit because that makes the rock now have a value of $10 million. We send a one ton satellite up into geostationary orbit because the value returned by that satellite exceeds the 10 million dollar needed in getting that satellite into that orbit. Equating cost with value is bogus economics.

[Enthalpy]

The solar thermal engine lets also this undertaking look better. From one Atlas V 551 launch (18.8t on a 400km orbit), or H-IIB or Ariane 5, it lands 6.7t on a small asteroid, and can bring cargo back.

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/76627-solar-thermal-rocket/page-2#entry818683

 

The solar thermal engine can expel vapour instead, from ice found at the asteroid, and bring a part of an icy asteroid back

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/76627-solar-thermal-rocket/page-2#entry757663

[Airbrush]

Suppose the USA detects an asteroid, not too far away, that has so much of a precious metal, that after netting out the costs of getting to it, attaching rockets, sending that asteroid to an Earth orbit, and finally chip off pieces to send to Earth, your net profit was 18 Trillion dollars. Could that pay off the USA national debt, or will the value of the precious metal become so diluted by the glut supply, that it would have a much smaller value?

Edited August 13, 2014 by Airbrush

[Phi for All]

Suppose the USA detects an asteroid, not too far away, that has so much of a precious metal, that after netting out the costs of getting to it, attaching rockets, sending that asteroid to an Earth orbit, and finally chip off pieces to send to Earth, your net profit was 18 Trillion dollars. Could that pay off the USA national debt, or will the value of the precious metal become so diluted by the glut supply, that it would have a much smaller value?

 

That much of a precious metal could indeed glut the market, unless strictly controlled. DeBeers keeps the price of diamonds high this way.

 

If we found that much platinum, it's unlikely we would pay off the national debt though. That would have a lot of far-reaching effects, just one of which would be no more US Treasury Bonds. A lot of investors rely on our bonds because they're so safe. Banks wouldn't know where to put their money.

 

We could sure pay it down quite a bit. I wonder what the consequences of the US going to a Platinum standard would be?

 

Btw, the only reason this is viable is because you stipulated that the net profit was in the trillions. How you could get that much profit is another question entirely. Remember that the rest of the platinum available was mined here at a fraction of the cost of asteroid mining. It's more profitable per ounce.

[Enthalpy]

The worth of a huge amount of platinum is the money buyers are willing to pay. The price per kg would obviously drop if big amounts were available, and no platinum user would give 18T$ to get it, whatever the amount.

 

Though, metals like gold or platinum have intrinsic advantages that let them prefer over copper for instance, when the use justifies the cost. Resistance to oxidation is the primary aspect to make electric contacts, jewels or coins. Huge amounts of presently precious metal would open them more uses. In some regions of the Inca's empire, bronze was made with gold instead of copper because of better availability.

 

So even if they were as widely available as copper, presently precious metals would still be valuable, probably more than copper.

 

I've seen no prospective figures by the projects of asteroid mining - which is reasonable since we ignore what asteroids may contain nor how to exploit them - but the goal isn't to grasp 18T$ of metal. Obtaining metal exceeding the mission costs would be a goal hard enough, and such a sum (G$) is obtainable from the buyers of precious metals.

 

Well, the solar thermal engines makes the endeavour more reasonable, and I suggest elsewhere a sunlight-pumped laser and a hydrogen gun to analyze asteroid candidates.