Mining the Asteroids

[Benefactor]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17827347

Details have been emerging of the plan by billionaire entrepreneurs to mine asteroids for their resources.

The multi-million-dollar plan would use robotic spacecraft to squeeze chemical components of fuel and minerals such as platinum and gold out of the rocks.

The founders include film director and explorer James Cameron as well as Google's chief executive Larry Page and its executive chairman Eric Schmidt.

They even aim to create a fuel depot in space by 2020.

However, several scientists have responded with scepticism, calling the plan daring, difficult and highly expensive.

So, a group of very rich men have decided to have a go at mining near earth asteroids. It seems incredibly ambitious, but also, crucially, it has a lot of money behind it.

What do you think? Is this a good idea? Is it even feasible at the moment?

Personally I hope this gets off the ground, quite a few people here have said that private industry should lead the way in space exploration and this seems to be the biggest example of this yet. I am however personally rather sceptical at the moment, several other members here have said that the technology and expertise required is simply to expensive for private companies to fund and hope to turn a profit.
I have read that a similar plan by NASA to land on an asteroid and bring back a small amount of it was going to cost near a billion dollars, this venture plans to (eventually) bring back much more material for much less money.

 

[Leonel]

"I remember when Google Industries used to be just a search engine back in the day."

 

[suiraclaw]

Is this a good idea?

Of course. More information about near-earth asteroids in short term and lower prices for those rare metals in long term are both things that'll greatly benefit us. In addition, they plan to greatly reduce costs for future space exploration by allowing ships to refuel in space (their first priority is asteroids that contain a lot of water to convert that into fuel).

Is it even feasible at the moment?

They said in the pressconference that the company is already cashflow positive (they have been researching, working and building for 3 years now) through contracts with other companies. Apprantly has something to do with promising to let other companies hire their telescopes and selling technologies.

Either way, I don't get the impression the investors only care for the money here. The appeal of investing in space exploration is quite strong by itself, even without the potentially (but unlikely) huge profits.

I have read that a similar plan by NASA to land on an asteroid and bring back a small amount of it was going to cost near a billion dollars

They did a pretty great job explaining in the press conference that their way of working isn't like the way NASA does it currently. Not similar at all, apparantly.

By the way, the company google doesn't have anything to do with this (yet). While it's true that the investors Larry Page and Eric Schmidt of this project also happen to work at Google, they invested only their own money.

 

[ArneHD]

Hey, if it works out, good! If it doesn't, well at least we will learn something from the experience.

 

[Samson]

In addition, they plan to greatly reduce costs for future space exploration by allowing ships to refuel in space (their first priority is asteroids that contain a lot of water to convert that into fuel).

How do they turn the water into fuel? Surly they could not do it in any realistic way with solar power on an astorid?

 

[Leonel]

How do they turn the water into fuel? Surly they could not do it in any realistic way with solar power on an astorid?

Perhaps attach a solar plant on the asteroid and separate the oxygen from hydrogen with low level electrolysis?

 

[GoodSarmatian]

Someone will run the numbers again and conclude that's a prestige project and a very expensive hobby.
I'd be surprised if this goes anywhere.

 

[Crezth]

X-posted from the space thread:

This was brought up on #nes earlier today, and as we discussed it I pointed out some problems that the scientists agreed with. Specifically:

However, several scientists have responded with scepticism, calling the plan daring, difficult and highly expensive.

They struggle to see how it could be cost-effective, even with platinum and gold worth nearly £35 per gram ($1,600 an ounce). An upcoming Nasa mission to return just 60g (two ounces) of material from an asteroid to Earth will cost about $1bn.

But I must admit that if billionaires want to blow billions on an investment that won't be realized for decades - and I mean decades - then I guess government intervention isn't all that necessary (on a fundamental level, anyway, as NASA advisers are certainly involved in the project). Once the ball gets rolling, there will be a certain inertial effect that even a zomg-communist like myself must admit is conducive to progress.

In my opinion, it'll just be a lot slower. But it'll happen. So long as the involved parties are happy with being in the red for as many as 20 to 30 years.

 

[Cutlass]

This is not economically feasible now. But someday likely will be. The point of mining asteroids is not to bring metals to Earth, but to make metals available for construction in space. And that's a long ways off. Still, we have to develop the tech at some point. And there may be spinoffs from the tech development that pay the bills. In the meantime, it's all just speculation. And high risk at that.

 

[History_Buff]

I'd say it's technically possible, but they're decades from seeing a profit I'd think. Though it will eventually be a lucrative industry, and I suppose there's something to being the first ones capable of doing it. Plus, space robots.

 

[pi-r8]

In tomorrow's news: Richard Branson announces he's funding development of an interstellar warp drive. Plans are "vague" but expect completion some time in 2067.

 

[History_Buff]

I should hope not. If he builds an Alcubierre drive he'll likely kill us all.

 

[LucyDuke]

Totally awesome. The awesomeness has its own value beyond the economic values of the materials mined and the technologies developed, which, yeah, will probably take a long time to realize. We need stuff like this to get excited about and inspired by.

 

[Winner]

How do they turn the water into fuel? Surly they could not do it in any realistic way with solar power on an astorid?

Perhaps attach a solar plant on the asteroid and separate the oxygen from hydrogen with low level electrolysis?

A better question is how they want to store hydrogen in space for years. Because, you know, hydrogen boils off very quickly. It's nearly impossible now to store it effectively for a period longer than days.

This probably can be solved by hi-tech development, but it will take time and money.

Someone will run the numbers again and conclude that's a prestige project and a very expensive hobby.
I'd be surprised if this goes anywhere.

I am willing to be positively surprised, while remaining the sceptic I am.

But I must admit that if billionaires want to blow billions on an investment that won't be realized for decades - and I mean decades - then I guess government intervention isn't all that necessary (on a fundamental level, anyway, as NASA advisers are certainly involved in the project). Once the ball gets rolling, there will be a certain inertial effect that even a zomg-communist like myself must admit is conducive to progress.

In my opinion, it'll just be a lot slower. But it'll happen. So long as the involved parties are happy with being in the red for as many as 20 to 30 years.

I think the comparison with the NASA sample-return mission is idiotic. It's like comparing the per-gram cost of obtaining a geologic sample during an initial survey of a previously inaccessible location here on Earth with the per-gram cost of commercial industrial mining elsewhere.

I remain sceptical though that mining asteroids for substances to be used on Earth will get anywhere. Mining water for propellant to be used in space is far more promising. Most of all, I am glad that people with money want to pour it into something that can actually help humanity as a whole, instead of buying some island in the Pacific along with their personal harem or something.

I'd say it's technically possible, but they're decades from seeing a profit I'd think. Though it will eventually be a lucrative industry, and I suppose there's something to being the first ones capable of doing it. Plus, space robots.

You can go only so far with robots. Any large-scale mining operation in space would require some human presence.

 

[suiraclaw]

I remain sceptical though that mining asteroids for substances to be used on Earth will get anywhere. Mining water for propellant to be used in space is far more promising.

They probably agree with you. After all, they're searching for carbon-rich asteroids right now, not platinum rich asteroids. Not only so they use the water within to fund eventual actual mineral mining, but also because other space companies would gladly pay a lot of cash to buy water from them in space.

Still, once that's done, they'll search for asteroids to mine.

You can go only so far with robots. Any large-scale mining operation in space would require some human presence.

Press release Q&A: no humans will be involved because they're just too expensive.

Either way, another big misunderstanding that I want to clarify: they don't have to wait till the first minerals come back to earth before they get their first return on investment. At all. Renting their telescopes and selling materials, fuel and technologies to other space companies should keep the company profitable enough until the actual mining of platinum part starts.

Lastly, their plans aren't vague. For example, they promised to start launching spacecraft within 24 months.

 

[Winner]

They probably agree with you. After all, they're searching for carbon-rich asteroids right now, not platinum rich asteroids. Not only so they use the water within to fund eventual actual mineral mining, but also because other space companies would gladly pay a lot of cash to buy water from them in space.

Still, once that's done, they'll search for asteroids to mine.

They could probably mine water, bring it to LEO (aerocapture/aerobraking FTW), and electrolyse it there according to demand. Storing water is several orders of magnitude easier than storing hydrogen.

The question then is, why asteroids? The Moon is much closer, the delta-V requirements are basically the same, and we know there is water on the south pole. Even better, with a decent electromagnetic catapult, a steady supply of lunar water could be brought to LEO.

Press release Q&A: no humans will be involved because they're just too expensive.

Of course, but that's true now. I said it before, but for the sake of this thread I'll do it again - you can get only so far with a purely automatic system. The more complex the automatic system is, the harder it becomes to keep it operational.

Robots are used now in space exploration because of financial restrictions. A decent human-mission to Mars would return more data about the planet than all the previous (surface) robotic missions combined.

If we are to build truly large-scale mining/manufacturing infrastructure in space, then the complexity itself will create the need for permanent human presence. It is impossible to make such a large automatic system to be fully self-maintaining simply because you'd have to plan for every possible malfunction that could occur and devise a fully automatic counter-measure. At some point, this will increase the cost and mass of the system far beyond the requirements of a few humans to watch over the facility.

But yeah, I am talking about distant future here - a future in which there actually is some industry in space.

Either way, another big misunderstanding that I want to clarify: they don't have to wait till the first minerals come back to earth before they get their first return on investment. At all. Renting their telescopes and selling materials, fuel and technologies to other space companies should keep the company profitable enough until the actual mining of platinum part starts.

I understand that. It's a clever way of maintaining space business while it works. The problem is that it could very easily fail - I hope that the people behind it are willing to step in if this were to occur and fill the hole in the cash flow with their own money.

Lastly, their plans aren't vague. For example, they promised to start launching spacecraft within 24 months.

We'll see. (My usual response to any space plan - they have a way of never getting anywhere ).

---

To those who think I am too pessimistic - I am not. I strongly believe that we're at the beginning of our space age. The Cold War space race and the lethargy that followed it were the Prologue, a foreshadowing of the real space age that will be driven primarily by economics, individual ambition, and dreams of many. The governments' influence on what we do in space will decrease in time - I just hope that they will choose to actively support this new space age rather than to hinder it with stupid regulations. ("nono, you can't go to space, because it is dangerous" )

 

[LucyDuke]

A decent human-mission to Mars would return more data about the planet than all the previous (surface) robotic missions combined.

Why (or how) is that so?

 

[Winner]

Why (or how) is that so?

Because our robots are extremely limited machines designed to perform specific tasks which are pre-determined here on Earth. Humans on the other hand are multi-purpose, independent self-aware machines that, despite their propensity for occasional malfunctions due to emotional issues, can alter their mission parameters in accordance to new circumstances. In other words, if a human being sees something interesting, it can go and investigate. Robot can't do that if it hasn't been designed for it.

Our robotic rovers are exceptional machines, let there be no doubt about that. But they don't even approach the capability a single human being would deliver in their place. The entire years-long mission of the rovers could be covered by a human in the span of a week, perhaps less - and probably better. Give that person the right tool kit and he or she will outperform dozens of robots.

Let me quote the greatest Mars-nut on Earth:

Robotic probes can help out in such a search – and should be aggressively pursued – but by themselves are completely insufficient. Fossil hunting requires the ability to travel long distances through unimproved terrain, to climb steep slopes, to do heavy work and delicate work, and to exercise very subtle forms of perception and on-the-spot intuition. Astrobiological investigations require the ability to drill, sample, culture and study life drawn from Martian groundwater. All of these skills are far beyond the abilities of robotic rovers. Field paleontology and astrobiology require human explorers, real live scientists on the scene.

 

[Benefactor]

I'm seeing some pessimism on various sites saying that the value of rare-earths and other mined resources would crash if they actually pull this off. Can anyone explain why they couldn't just control the price if they are the only ones in space doing it? Like some sort of Space OPEC.

 

[Winner]

I'm seeing some pessimism on various sites saying that the value of rare-earths and other mined resources would crash if they actually pull this off. Can anyone explain why they couldn't just control the price if they are the only ones in space doing it? Like some sort of Space OPEC.

That's nonsense. In order for the prices to crash, they would have to start bringing huge amounts of these metals to Earth now. That's not what will happen.

What could happen is that in the future, the demand for these substances will increase and so will their price. This in turn will provide further economic incentive to get the stuff from space.